QUANTITATIVE STUDY/CRITIQUE

QUANTITATIVE STUDY/CRITIQUE

QUANTITATIVESTUDY/CRITIQUE

Dateof submission:

Thepublished quantitative study entitled ‘nurses and patientsperceptions of caring behaviors’ (papastavrou et al., 2011) is areport paper that entails a systematic review carried out to examinethe hypothesis that patients and nurses view the concept of caring inthe field of nursing differently. In nursing profession caring is acentral concept. Nevertheless, despite being an essential practice inclinical medicine, majority of scholars and researchers have yet toagree on a common definition (papastavrou et al., 2011). This lack ofconsensus on the mode of caring has elicited differentinterpretations that has led to opposing perspectives between nursesand patients.

Thesource of the data used was derived from an extensive search usingCINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE in a period of three months in 2009, allthese having no publishing time limit and the key words ‘caring’,‘care’, ‘nursing’, ‘nurse’, ‘patient’, ‘behaviors’,‘comparative’, ‘quantitative’ and ‘perception’(papastavrouet al., 2011). The quantitative study conducted is consistent withguidance of the center for reviews and dissemination (papastavrou etal., 2011). A checklist which contains seven items with yes or nooptions was created and utilized to access the quality status of thechosen literature and the summary narrative technique was adopted toreport outcomes.

Themain aim of the review was to examine whether there exist congruencebetween nurses and patients with regard to perceptions of caringbehaviors. And also it attempts to pinpoint any area of disagreementand agreement between these perceptions. The mode of inclusioncriteria used comprised ofadult participants, nurses, hospital orinstitution settings, patients populations, English language,quantitative research design and any other issues relevant to thestudy. The literature examination was conducted by two members (Green&amp Davis, 2005).

Fromthis review, it is fascinating to observe that in the early steps ofthis kind of research in the area of caring, the collection of datawas exclusively done using care-Q instrument and Q-methodologyinvented by Larson (1984). In the 23 studies assessed only 18 studiesused Q-methodology and the remaining studies utilized caringbehaviors inventory, the caring dimensions inventory and the caringbehavior assessment (Green &amp Davis, 2005).

Someof the outstanding differences were identified between patients andnurses with regard to their view of caring and caring behaviors inseveral reviewed studies. According to the Q-methodology, a number ofseveral essential differences were highlighted between the patientsand nurses (papastavrou et al., 2011). On the part of the patients,they appear to value the technical caring skills which areinstrumental more than nurses, and also they view competent behavioron nursing activities to be more essential.

Nurseon the other hand view their expressive and psychological skills tobe more important than the perception of the patients. This leads tothe logical conclusion that nurses often misperceive the need of theemotional aspect when caring contrary to the judgment of thepatients. Therefore, the care of the patients is not congruent totheir expectations, individuals’ needs and preferences. It isapparent from this quantitative study that nurses are not oftenaccurate in their assessment of the perception of patients ondifferent levels of caring which may led them to adopt plans ofcaring for the patient which are purely based on their ownassumptions (papastavrou et al., 2011). In essence for high qualitynursing practice, nurses ought to factor patient’s perspective inorder to merge nursing activities with the patient outcome(papastavrou et al., 2011).

References

GreenA. &amp Davis S. ( 2005 ) Toward a predictive model of patientsatisfaction with nurse practitioner care . Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Nurse Practitioners 17 , 139 – 148 .

papastavroue., efstathiou g. &amp charalambous a. (2011) Nurses’ andpatients’ perceptions of caring behaviours: quantitative systematicreview of comparative studies. Journal of Advanced Nursing67(6),1191–1205.