Critical Analysis of a Heart Failure Study Report - Healthcare

This report presents a critical analysis of a randomized controlled trial investigating a multimedia educational intervention for patients with heart failure. The analysis examines the study's reported rigor and potential biases, focusing on the use of blinded randomization to minimize bias and the statistical methods employed. The report then assesses the internal validity of the study, considering potential confounding variables and limitations such as the lack of detailed mechanisms of patient behavior in intervention groups and the absence of data on educational resource usage. The report also briefly discusses compliance and adherence to the intervention, highlighting the significance of these factors in evaluating the study's outcomes. The study's strengths include its use of a randomized controlled trial design, while the limitations include potential biases in data analysis and the lack of consideration of certain variables that may influence hospitalization rates. The analysis concludes by emphasizing the importance of considering these factors when interpreting the study's findings and their implications for clinical practice.

Running head: CRITICAL ANALYSIS
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Answer to question no. 1
In the article, the author reported that the method of the study was based on blinded
randomization. The randomization is used to minimize the bias of an investigation. A survey can
be double-blind, single-blind or open. Here, the author used blind randomization, where they
assigned patients using a computer-generated sequence and a hidden envelope according to the
ratio of usual care and multimedia educational involvement (Saturni, et al., 2014). The study also
revealed that the data were analyzed with the help of statistical methods like Pearson’s Chi-
square test and student’s t-test in the initial stage of care procedure to identify the true
randomization. In this paper, the author analyzed the data of Dutch Heart Failure Knowledge
Scale and Self-Care of Heart Failure Index by the methods of distribution free tests since these
constant variables did not encounter the hypothesis of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test normality. Non-
parametric criteria are followed in the situation when the data does not support any specific
distribution, and no assumptions can be made from there. Hence, there can be an increased
chance of the data analysis biasness that would affect the probable outcome and prevent from
getting the relevant result of this study. In this article, another possible biasness is the data
analyst should not be informed previously about the selection of the participant.
Answer to question number 2
The research has shown that the researchers measured the samples as random, and the
result has showcased that personalized, software educational interference has decreased all-cause
unplanned hospital readmissions of a patient with Heart Failure at 12 months. In this article, the

2CRITICAL ANALYSIS
researcher used control variables to interpret other things responsible for causing this disease.
Thus, the authors have encountered all other confounding variables that might hamper the data.
Hence the internal validity is very high for this research (Patino & Ferreira, 2018).
This survey has not clearly described the exact mechanism of the behavior of the patient
in the intervention groups which considerably reduced all-cause unintended hospitalization.
Many variables, apart from self-care and knowledge which are also not be considered in this
study, that may have some influence on reasonable hospitalizations rates in both groups, despite
parallel outcomes in knowledge and self-care. The authors suggested an incident to explain this
event. The researcher reported that the DVD was focused on performing the main functions, for
example, calling healthcare specialists for additional social care that may influence psychological
position, thus affecting the total all-cause hospitalizations. Moreover, the author did not evaluate
the call numbers of health care providers after discharging the patient. Another outcome that the
researchers did not include is the possession of educational resources such as DVD at home.
Since this DVD can be viewed on numerous occasions and also common with other family
associates and care givers, it may impact on patient’s capability to achieve their HF. Several
limitations have to be taken into consideration. Being one exclusive study, the analyst who
directed the complementary telephone calls at three months and twelve months was not deprived
of the fact that may hamper the results (Mi et al., 2015).
Answer to question no 3
In this article, the authors performed the experiment with the help of randomized
controlled trial (RCT) method. By abiding the method’s rule, the researchers also conducted the
experiment to assess the effectiveness of new treatment (Spieth et al., 2016). They divided the

3CRITICAL ANALYSIS
samples into two groups; one is experimental where new intervention is examined and other is
control where conventional treatment is followed (Friedman, Furberg, DeMets, Reboussin, &
Granger 2015). The authors also considered the blind sample that is inferred as gold-standard
method to determine the effectiveness of the new medical management. The authors also
monitored that obtaining outcomes followed the initial method that is chosen for this experiment.

4CRITICAL ANALYSIS
References
Friedman, L. M., Furberg, C. D., DeMets, D. L., Reboussin, D. M., & Granger, C. B. (2015).
The randomization process. In Fundamentals of clinical trials (pp. 123-145). Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18539-2_6
Mi, G. L., Zhao, L., Qiao, D. D., Kang, W. Q., Tang, M. Q., & Xu, J. K. (2015). Effectiveness of
Lactobacillus reuteri in infantile colic and colicky induced maternal depression: a
prospective single blind randomized trial. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek, 107(6), 1547-1553.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-015-0448-9
Patino, C. M., & Ferreira, J. C. (2018). Internal and external validity: can you apply research
study results to your patients?. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 44(3), 183-183.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s1806-37562018000000164
Saturni, S., Bellini, F., Braido, F., Paggiaro, P. I. E. R., Sanduzzi, A., Scichilone, N., ... & Papi,
A. (2014). Randomized controlled trials and real life studies. Approaches and
methodologies: a clinical point of view. Pulmonary pharmacology & therapeutics, 27(2),
129-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pupt.2014.01.005
Spieth, P. M., Kubasch, A. S., Penzlin, A. I., Illigens, B. M. W., Barlinn, K., & Siepmann, T.
(2016). Randomized controlled trials–a matter of design. Neuropsychiatric disease and
treatment, 12, 1341. https://dx.doi.org/10.2147%2FNDT.S101938