Problem Statement
Severe impairments of kidneys, issues with the cardiovascular system, and several other health concerns require the introduction of dialysis to immediately manage a significant health threat. However, the choice of the tool used for the dialysis often defines the patients’ chances to survive and the different prognosis concerning the patient’s life expectancy (Kim et al., 2020). Currently, two alternatives are utilized in the clinical settings; namely, the Central Venous Catheter (CVC) and the Arteriovenous Fistula (AFV) are used interchangeably to implement the procedure (Lee et al., 2019).
However, despite their current perception as mutually replaceable tools, the mortality levels in patients with said health impairments may be lower depending on the choice of the instrument. Therefore, an in-depth comparison of the specified devices is needed and a thorough literature review. Indeed, a literature review containing the main points of selected articles, their strengths and weaknesses, and their significance for the study allows understanding of the issue entirely. Although challenges such as locating relevant and recent studies are expected, they can be avoided by selecting search words carefully and approaching the issue critically.
PICOT Question
In patients with CVD, does peritoneal dialysis increase their likelihood of survival compared to the CVC and AFV and the mortality rates by at least 10% that they cause on the time slot of a month?
Sampling
Since the study needs to be quantitative to test the efficacy of each tool applied in the clinical settings, the study will need a sample of at least 500 patients. Indeed, given the significant difference between qualitative and quantitative research, namely, the need to examine the variability (quantitative) and the nature of a phenomenon (qualitative), the specified choice is justified. Mainly, since the qualitative study seeks to determine the dependence between critical variables, as opposed to the qualitative one, which focuses exclusively on understanding an issue, the quantitative approach is preferable in this context.
Thus, the assessment outcomes will be trustworthy, credible, and verifiable. Additionally, simple random sampling will be utilized to ensure that the levels of uncertainty remain low and that the distribution rates should not skew.
References
Kim, D. H., Park, J. I., Lee, J. P., Kim, Y. L., Kang, S. W., Yang, C. W., Kang, S. W., Yang, C. W., Kim, N. H., Kim, Y. S., & Lim, C. S. (2020). The effects of vascular access types on the survival and quality of life and depression in the incident hemodialysis patients. Renal Failure, 42(1), 30-39. Web.
Lee, T., Qian, J., Thamer, M., & Allon, M. (2019). Gender disparities in vascular access surgical outcomes in elderly hemodialysis patients. American Journal of Nephrology, 49(1), 11-19. Web.