Evaluation of Quality of Life in Laryngeal Cancer Patients After Total Laryngectomy

[School]
[Course title]
[Document title]
[Document subtitle]
NS521 – Research Methods for
Nursing

P a g e | 1
The research report by Perry, Casey, and Cotton (2015) evaluates the quality of life
(QoL) of advanced laryngeal cancer patients after their total laryngectomy in the operative
setting. The selection of this cross-sectional study is based on the assessment of significant
factors including self-efficacy, psychological well-being, and functioning that exhibit
substantial alteration in laryngeal cancer patients after their laryngeal excision. The QoL is an
important outcome that impacts the well-being and sustainability of the patients affected with
serious, chronic, or life-threatening conditions (Sosnowski et al. 2017). Most health care
approaches focus on improving the health-related QoL of seriously ill patients in the context
of enhancing their life expectancy and wellness outcomes. Furthermore, analysis of QoL
through quantitative measures provides more credible outcomes as compared to qualitative
approaches. Furthermore, a quantitative study substantially helps in theory analysis, causal
inferences categorization, and generalization of findings (Guetterman, Fetters & Creswell
2015). The statistically significant outcomes acquire greater authenticity across the research
community and health care professionals have the privilege to consider statistically
significant outcomes as the baseline for conducting prospective studies. These outcomes
substantiate the selection of a research report by Perry, Casey, and Cotton (2015) for its
systematic critique via Caldwell et al’s (2005) evidence-based tool. The presented critical
analysis, accordingly, evaluates various aspects of the selected paper, including credibility of
title, abstract, research rationale, aims, literature review, ethical context, methodology, study
design, hypothesis, variables, sample size, data collection methods, data analysis procedures,
results, discussion, findings, and conclusion.
The title of the selected study substantially indicates the paper content in a manner
that it categorically displays QoL elements, including self-efficacy, psychological well-being,
and functioning that the authors attempted to evaluate in laryngeal cancer patients during
their postoperative period (following total laryngectomy). The credibility of the authors is
based on their association with esteemed Clinical Therapy Departments, Child Development
Center, and Youth Mental Health Center of University of Limerick (Ireland), The Royal
Children’s Hospital (Australia), and University of Melbourne (Australia). The authors
presented an informative abstract while including key components of the cross-sectional
investigation. Informative abstract effectively summarizes major components of a scientific
study (Nagda 2013). However, the abstract of the presented study did not include hypotheses
and presumption related to the research objective. The authors of the selected study discussed
their previous findings related to the passive correlation between psychological well-being

P a g e | 2
and QoL in total laryngectomy subjects. The authors also predicted a correlation between
QoL and self-efficacy of the concerned patients following their total laryngectomy. The
authors emphasized a substantial knowledge gap in the context of correlation between
psychological well-being and self-efficacy of total lymphadenectomy patients that required
prospective analysis through quantitative assessment. This knowledge gap proved to be the
rationale for conducting the presented cross-sectional analysis.
The literature review signified the survival rate of laryngeal cancer patients in
Australia. The literature review also emphasized the functional issues experienced by
laryngeal carcinoma patients after undergoing total laryngectomy. The literature review
provided some evidence in relation to the impact of total laryngectomy on QoL of the treated
patients. However, the literature review did not investigate substantial studies related to the
interrelationships between self-efficacy, psychological well-being or stress level, and
swallowing/speech functions of total laryngectomy patients. The literature review, however,
emphasized studies that reflected a linear relationship between self-efficacy and QoL.
Accordingly, the authors attempted to evaluate connectedness of self-perceived QoL with
self-efficacy, psychological well-being and swallowing/speech functions of the laryngeal
cancer patients in their postoperative tenure. Despite the systematic elaboration of research
aim, the study rationale focussed more on the association of self-efficacy of laryngeal cancer
patients with their perceptions of swallowing/speech functions, stress/anxiety/depression
level, social relationships, and physical health. In other words, the literature review did not
provide greater substantiation related to the possible knowledge gaps between psychological
well-being, physiological functions, and self-perceived QoL of the laryngeal cancer patients.
The authors also did not explore evidence-based literature to evaluate the general context of
self-efficacy and its impact on wellness outcomes (Milam et al. 2019). The discussion of
these findings could have elevated the strength of rationale for undertaking self-efficacy
analysis of laryngeal cancer patients following their complete laryngectomy. The authors did
not elaborate on ethical issues or conflicts of interest; however, they did mention the Human
Ethics Committee’s approval in relation to the cross-sectional analysis.
Cross-sectional studies require a complete description of the exclusion and inclusion
parameters and participants’ selection criteria (Setia 2016). However, the authors of the
presented study did not appropriately describe these parameters in accordance with the study
aims and hypothesis. For example, the documented inclusion criteria of the presented study
were based on English skills and participants’ age. However, the authors did not separately