Three knowledgeable researchers, Mitchell R Kinsley Janet S. Carpenter and Diane Von Ah, were involved in conducting the research. The integrative review addressed such component of personalized health care as pharmacogenomics and its clinical as well as educational implications. The researchers employed computer-based search with the use of such key words as “pharmacogenomics and pharmacogenetics” (Knisely, Carpenter & Ah, 2014, p. 285).
Inclusion criteria for articles were as follows. The full-length journals had to be published in nursing journals in English. They had to include relevant information on pharmacogenomics and pharmacogenetics. One hundred and thirty-six articles were processed but only 47 were included in the present research as they met inclusion criteria. The rest of the articles were either editorials or abstracts, did not include relevant information on pharmacogenomics or were duplicate publications.
Almost all surveys (91.5%) were narrative reviews. Knisely et al. (2014) conclude that since the articles available on the topic included limited discussions of clinical, educational and research implications, there is a need in more systematic and empirical publications as the researchers believe that nurses should be more involved in discussion of issues related to pharmacogenomics.
The article in question is credible due to a number of reasons. First, it is necessary to note that the topic was clearly defined. It is possible to note that the search was comprehensive and unbiased as the researchers used particular inclusion as well as exclusion criteria. The citation screening for inclusion was based on rather explicit criteria as specific key words and articles’ features (editorials, full texts and so on) were exploited.
As far as quality of the articles assessed is concerned, it is possible to assume that relevant sources were used as they were taken from nursing journals. The results and findings of the survey were discussed in detail and the data were provided explicitly (in tables with sufficient explanations). The article includes a comprehensive synthesis of reviews as they were grouped and the findings presented were analyzed. Knisely et al. (2014) defined major topics and gaps in the articles. Since the goal of the study was to identify major topics discussed on pharmacogenomics, differences in findings, which, were sometimes outlined, were not examined.
The researchers distinguish between conclusions based on inferior and sufficient evidence as they note that their research has rather limited number of articles examined. However, the research is consistent as it unveils gaps existing in the field. The overall conclusion of the research is that the articles reviewed in the vast majority of cases were mere narratives and lacked for particular clinical, educational and research implications. Therefore, it is possible to note that the conclusions provided are relevant as the survey is based on sufficient number of relevant articles.
It is necessary to note that the findings cannot be regarded as meaningful for making a difference in patient outcomes as the article does not provide data on the use of particular strategies. Some methods are only mentioned without any evaluation or analysis. Nonetheless, the survey is meaningful for educational and research purposes as it is likely to start a lasting discussion of the issues and facilitate inclusion of nurses in development (as well as evaluation) of particular strategies and approaches applicable in pharmacogenomics. Likewise, relevance of the article to the care nurses give is relatively small but the article makes nurses more aware of the gap existing in the field.
Besides, the survey unveils certain strategies that nursing practitioners can research, evaluate and employ in their practice. It is possible to state that the conclusions provided are clinically significant as researchers as well as practitioners will pay more attention to issues related to pharmacogenomics. The field will develop and healthcare professionals will learn more about pharmacogenomics and will be more involved.
On balance, it is possible to note that integrative research review is an effective method that enables researchers to discover evidence concerning various clinical issues. One of major goals the method can help achieve is to define the gap in the field. It also enables researchers to evaluate the ongoing discourse on a variety of issues. Notably, this makes health care professionals more attentive to specific issues and a comprehensive debate starts. Admittedly, the debate leads to development of new strategies, their evaluation and assessment. Further, newly developed strategies spread during the discussion.
I will definitely use the integrative research review as one of research methods in future. The method will help me define peculiarities of the discussion on particular clinical issues. I will also be able to draw healthcare professionals’ attention to issues I find important and relevant and, in this way, to make a difference and contribute to development of nursing practice. Clearly, the use of the method is time-consuming and requires quite specific skills. Therefore, it is essential to keep analyzing integrative research reviews to be able to employ this method in future.
Knisely, M.R., Carpenter, J.S., & Ah, D.V. (2014). Pharmacogenomics in the nursing literature: An integrative review. Nursing Outlook, 62(4), 285-296. Web.