The heading ofthe article is sufficient since it reveals the key variable aspulmonary hypertension. The title also describes the nature of thestudy as a qualitative exploration.
Nevertheless, theabstract did not provide a clear and concise summary of the report’smain features. Hence, the methods, results, and conclusions were notdistinctly separated.
The problem wasnot easy to identify since the preliminary segment was not subdividedinto distinct sections. Since pulmonary hypertension was a rarecondition, the issue had limited significance for nursing. Thequantitative approach used was insufficient for the desired outcomes.Hence, the problem statement failed to present a persuasive argumentfor the study. Furthermore, research questions were not explicitlystated. Nevertheless, their absence was justified since the trialsought to highlight the daily impact of pulmonary hypertension.
The studyacquired ethical approval from the University of Salford ResearchEthics Committee and the Pulmonary Association MedicalCommittee. Moreover, informed consent was obtained and subsequentlydiscussed at the beginning of the study. Additional review wasconducted at the conclusion of the research. Consequently, the studywas designed to maximize benefits while minimizing the risks topatients.
Notably, adequateanalysis was undertaken to fulfill the aims of the research. Thestatistical methods used were also appropriate for the number ofvariables and groups being compared. However, the study failed toprovide information on statistical significance. The findings weresummarized and presented in a well-labeled table.
The research highlighted the experiences of individuals withpulmonary hypertension. In this regard, some themes concerned thedaily challenges faced by such patients (Yorke et al., 2014).Notwithstanding, the authors failed to discuss the implications forclinical practice.
Indeed, theresearchers have credible qualifications that enhance confidence intheir findings. For example, Janelle Yorke holds a Ph.D. and formspart of the faculty at the University of Manchester while IainArmstrong has a Masters in Medical Sciences. The latter was a memberof the Pulmonary Unit at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital.On the other hand, Sarah Bundock was actively involved with HealthEdin Cheshire, UK. Therefore, the study findings appear to be valid.
Yorke, J., Armstrong, I., & Bundock, S. (2014). Impact of livingwith pulmonary hypertension: A qualitative exploration. Nursing &Health Sciences, 16(4), 454-460. doi:10.1111/nhs.12138