Critique of Health Professional and Family Perceptions Article

This report presents a critique of the research article "Health Professional and Family Perceptions of Post-Stroke Information" by Roy et al. The critique focuses on the "Methods" section, evaluating the sample description, instruments, psychometric information, materials, design, and overall method sufficiency. The study employed a mixed-methods descriptive survey design to understand the opinions of family members and health professionals on post-stroke information provision. The researchers used questionnaires, both face-to-face interviews and postal/electronic versions, to collect data, which was informed by a literature review. The report also critiques the article's title, assessing its description, keyword reflection, and conciseness. The findings of the article are analyzed for their impact on nursing practice in New Zealand, highlighting the potential for nurses to develop a culture of providing adequate knowledge to stroke survivors, their families, and caregivers, thereby building therapeutic relationships and enhancing recovery. The critique concludes that the study's strengths include its effective research design, while suggesting improvements such as a larger sample size to enhance generalizability.

Running head: CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 1
Critique of Article
Name
Institutional Affiliation

CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 2
CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE: Method and Title
D. Method
Sample Description
The sample is evidently described based on size, selection, assignment procedures, and
relevant characteristics (Bell, Bryman, & Harley, 2018). No enticements were utilized to beseech
participants. The researcher used purposive sampling strategies. In selection, the researcher
applied the inclusion criteria for family members. For the family member group, one would only
be included if he is a member of the family of a person already witnessed a stroke in the past 2
years and with sufficient spoken English for the completion of both questionnaire and consent
form.
The researchers invited several members from the same family to take part using flyers
dispatched in clinical areas at local hospitals and local stroke foundation support groups or
straight via intermediaries. In selecting the practitioners, they were only invited if they presently
worked with individuals post-stroke, within community or hospital by posting information in
flyers in clinical areas. In terms of staff selections, they were invited during presentation
regarding the study and no active inclusion; however, their contact particulars stood available.
The intermediaries were used for a direct approach to subjects. The researchers also gave
information sheets to all potential participants, and consent stood obtained before the collection
of data (Hunter, McCallum & Howes, 2018).
In terms of sample size, for the family members, 19 individuals from 13 families
volunteered to partake, and the demographic characteristics were given as shown in the table
below:

CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 3
In terms of sample size for health professional subjects, 23 practitioners filled complete
questionnaires either via interview (face to face) (n=21) or electronically (n=2).
In terms of relevant characteristics of participants, besides giving the demographic
characteristics in the table form, there was an accompanying description. For example, for the
health professionals, the authors described their work roles as either for stroke foundation as
administrators (n=2), community stroke advisors (n=5) or stroke services, both rehabilitation and
acute, of big DHB (Nash, 2015). The researchers also explained that DHB workers entailed RN
(n=5) and EN (n=1) and occupational therapist (n=3), a stroke physician (n=1), physiotherapist

CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 4
(n=2), speech-language therapist (n=2) as well as therapy assistants (n=2). The demographic for
health professional participants are also given in table 2 and three as shown:
Instruments Description
The instrument used was a questionnaire, undertaken either via face-to-face interviews or
participants filling by them. The instrument seems suitable as a measure of variables under
investigation. The authors have described how they developed the survey questionnaire guided

CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 5
by the review of the literature and stakeholder advisory group. This made them develop two
questionnaires correctly; one for families of individuals who had witnessed a stroke in the past 2
years (stroke-families) and the other for practitioners, working with stroke families. The decision
to have two kinds of questionnaires was effective to correctly measure the variable under study
from each group since different information/data was sought. The authors also correctly chose to
include both closed and open-ended questions in the questionnaire, thereby enabling the
collection of both quantitative and qualitative data.
Moreover, it was effective to pilot the questionnaire and make minor changes to specific
questions for clarity as done in the study (Pyrczak & Tcherni-Buzzeo, 2018). Furthermore, the
researchers made the correct decision to avail both postal/electronic to the health professionals.
This allowed the health professionals to choose an option and hence gather the data correctly.
Also, it was a practical decision for the researchers to use the research assistants to administer
face-to-face interviews with the rest of the subjects (n=40).
Moreover, the researchers made to collect the data using the research assistants who had
been initially trained in questionnaire administration, which avoided the introduction of bias
during the interviews. Thus the use of the questionnaires correctly allowed the effective
collection of data under study including data regarding their roles in developing and providing
information for stroke families, particulars of what and how they give information, as well as
their opinions on if as well as how they might get improved (all qualitative). On the other hand,
families were also able to give data on information provision at the point of stroke and
information provision since the discharge of survivors of stroke.

CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 6
Psychometric Information
There is no sufficient direct information regarding the psychometric properties, including
the validity and reliability of the instruments. Nonetheless, it is implied in this study since the
developing of the survey, and its administration was based on correct advisory and use of trained
research assistants, which eliminated chances of introducing bias during the interview. This
makes the instruments valid and reliable (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2017).
Materials and Design
The researchers have clearly described the materials used in collecting data and
conducting the study despite the lack of a distinct title or topic of ‘materials' in the study. For
instance, the researchers described the use of postal and electronic means to send the
questionnaires which two occupational therapists used. Also, the study has outlined how they
used Excel spreadsheets (Excel 2010, Microsoft Corporation, and the USA) to enter all data,
including transcribed responses to open questions which facilitated analysis (John et al., 2019).
The research design of this study is identified as mixed methods descriptive survey design that
helped the researcher s to gain the correct understanding of the opinions of the family members
and the health professionals on post-stroke information provision (Lipp & Fothergill, 2015).
Appropriateness of Design and Procedure
The design and the procedure appear appropriate considering the research problem,
conceptual framework, as well as research hypotheses or questions. For example, the design of
the mixed qualitative and quantitative survey was effective and evident in this study as the
instruments used to gather data allowed both open and closed qualitative and quantitative data to
be gathered. The procedure used to collect the opinions through a questionnaire (both face-to-
face interview and postal/electronic versions) enabled the researchers to gather the data which

CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 7
was informed by the literature review which already identified the problems or gap in the
literature (Joyner, Rouse & Glatthorn, 2018).
Overall Method Sufficient Information
The method section provides adequate information overall to replicate this study.
Everything is explained in simple terms and procedures that make it easy for the participants to
participate and give their opinions without any bias (Flick, 2018). For instance, the instruments
were appropriate, and even the use of trained research assistants was effective to help reduce any
bias being introduced during the interview. Data was well entered into excel, and hence, this
facilitated the analysis which informed the findings (Daniel & Harland, 2017).
Based on the general impressions, this article is well written and organized from abstract
to referencing list. The article address a critical nursing or health issue, which is stroke and the
need for adequate information provision in post-stroke (Cutcliffe & Ward, 2014). The greatest
strength of this study is that it has used an effective research design to understand the perception
of both family and health professions on information provision. This study might be improved
further by using a large sample size to enhance generalizability (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2018).
A. Title
Title Description
The title clearly describes the study since it is captured as the "health professional and family
perceptions of post-stroke information (Cutcliffe, & Ward, M. (2014)." This tittle shows the
subjects and what kind of data to be obtained, which is the perception of the subjects on the post-
stroke-information provision.
Keyword Reflection of Key Elements
Yes. The keywords of the title reflect the critical aspect of the article, including post-stroke

CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 8
information and perceptions of family and health professionals (John, Doug, Esther, & Kim et
al., 2019).
Title Conciseness
Yes. The title remains concise and free from any irrelevant or distracting phrase or words.
(Cutcliffe & Ward, 2014).
Question 3: Briefly discuss how the findings can impact on nursing in NZ
The finding will positively impact on nursing practice in NZ. Nurses will use the information
from this article to develop a culture which ensures that they provide the desired knowledge to the
stroke survivor, their families and caregivers. This will help build therapeutic relationship
between amongst the stakeholders and hence facilitate information which enhances recovery in
post-stroke treatment.
References

CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 9
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2018). Business research methods. Oxford university press,
11(3), 12-67.
Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2018). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map
from beginning to end. Sage Publications, 14(2), 11-56.
Cutcliffe, J., & Ward, M. (2014). Critiquing Nursing Research 2nd Edition. Andrews UK
Limited.
Daniel, B. K., & Harland, T. (2017). Higher Education Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step
Guide to the Research Process. Routledge, 17(4), 4-69.
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications Limited, 12(6), 13-
78.
Hunter, D., McCallum, J., & Howes, D. (2018). Defining Exploratory-Descriptive Qualitative
(EDQ) Research and Considering Its Application to Healthcare, 10(5), 32-198.
John, D., Doug, E., Esther, C., & Kim, U., (2019). Research in nursing: concepts and processes.
Nakato Institute of Technology, 11(2), 138-154.
Joyner, R. L., Rouse, W. A., & Glatthorn, A. A. (2018). Writing the winning thesis or
dissertation: A step-by-step guide. Corwin press, 16(3), 16-70.
Lipp, A., & Fothergill, A. (2015). A guide to critiquing a research paper. Methodological
appraisal of a paper on nurses in abortion care. Nurse education today, 35(3), e14-e17.
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2017). Nursing research-E-book: methods and critical
appraisal for evidence-based practice. Elsevier Health Sciences, 15(4), 16-65.
Nash, D. (2015). Health Professional and Family Perceptions of Post-Stroke Information.
Nursing Praxis in New Zealand, 31(2), 7–24.

CRITIQUE OF ARTICLE 10
Pyrczak, F., & Tcherni-Buzzeo, M. (2018). Evaluating research in academic journals: A
practical guide to realistic evaluation. Routledge, 15(4), 32-109.