The article by Galbraith & Brown (2011) is titled “Assessing intervention effectiveness for reducing stress in student nurses: A quantitative systematic review”, and it reflects the contents. The abstract that is provided is well-written, and all the necessary information is provided. Moreover, it is possible to state that it can be viewed as representative of this work. The primary reason for research is well-explained in the introduction. The problem is that health professionals have to deal with enormous levels of stress, and it is much higher than for other jobs. This condition affects levels of performance, and it would be beneficial to improve the understanding of primary causes to develop approaches that would help to address such problems. The fact that there is a global shortage of such professionals is also worth mentioning and the focus on the reduction of attrition could be vital and would help to increase the level of retention (Galbraith & Brown, 2011). The problem is clearly stated, and pieces of evidence are provided to ensure that the audience is aware of the scope of this issue. Some of the approaches that were previously suggested are underdeveloped, and the role of evaluations was frequently overlooked.
The authors have focused on the fact that the effectiveness of techniques that are currently used varies, and the needs of student nurses are disregarded most of the time. Research questions are well-developed and defined in this study. However, authors could have drawn more attention to them to ensure that they are easier to notice by readers (Polit & Beck, 2013). The theoretical framework is not provided in this case because the authors believe that it is not required. After all, most concepts are not complicated. However, it should have been available to increase the level of accessibility of the study. The literature review is appropriate, and it is quite comprehensive. However, the problem is that most sources that were used are not recent, and it would be beneficial to provide current information to ensure that the audience understands that the problem is still present and needs to be researched, and bias is not noted. The design that has been used can be viewed as reasonable because the authors have developed criteria that should be met.
Moreover, enormous attention has been devoted to the overall quality of information to ensure that the results that are received are valid. The sample size is sufficient in this case, and it is appropriate for this research design because all the necessary information needs to be manually reviewed (Houser, 2011). A data collection instrument was required to look for studies on this subject matter. The authors have used databases to search for relevant information with the use of particular keywords. The analytical approach that is used is rational in this situation, and it is based on the research plan and questions. The results of the study are presented clearly, and the authors explain the findings. Statistical data is not available in this case, and the section is focused on similarities and particular patterns that were noted. Moreover, authors could have provided necessary numbers to ensure that it is easier to review such information. The authors try to ensure that the information is explained about the proposed theoretical framework, questions that were selected, and enormous attention is devoted to the importance of this subject matter for nursing (Suresh, 2015).
The data received is quantitative, and it supports the hypothesis. The level of diversity of studies that are reviewed may be viewed as a significant limitation because it is not an easy task to compare them when such enormous differences in methods used are present. The authors acknowledge this fact and believe that it should be considered by the audience (Gray, Grove, & Burns, 2013). Other studies also support this idea, and this topic is still researched because many scholars have recognized that it is a critical issue (Chernomas & Shapiro, 2013). A set of recommendations for nursing practice is provided. The authors do not make any suggestions that should be considered by policymakers because they believe that this area is relatively unexplored, and there is a need for future research. The problem is that some of the approaches that were researched can be viewed as outdated, and authors could have focused on recent studies (Grove & Cipher, 2016). The fact that it is stated that interventions should be developed and tested is also vital. It is also suggested that personal factors should be taken into account because they have an enormous impact on the outcome in most situations.
The quality of evidence is not significant in this case because of the unique aspects of the study. Moreover, it can be classified as level III evidence according to the National Guideline Clearinghouse because it was a descriptive study.
Such information can be utilized in the practice because it is evident that the problem that is being discussed affects the performance levels of health professionals. Also, the way that students perceive clinical practice is another aspect that needs to be considered, and it would be beneficial to educate them about the primary goals of such activities to prevent stress and avoid possible complications. However, more attention could have been devoted to the development of recommendations that should be considered by registered nurses.
Beck, C. T. (2013). Routledge international handbook of qualitative nursing research. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.
Boswell, C., & Cannon, S. (2015). Introduction to nursing research (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Chernomas, W., & Shapiro, C. (2013). Stress, depression, and anxiety among undergraduate nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 10(1), 255-266.
Freeman, S., Hallett, C., & McHugh, G. (2016). Physical restraint: Experiences, attitudes and opinions of adult intensive care unit nurses. Nursing in Critical Care, 21(2), 78-87.
Galbraith, N. D., & Brown, K. E. (2011). Assessing intervention effectiveness for reducing stress in student nurses: A quantitative systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(4), 709-721.
Gerrish, K., & Lathlean, J. (2015). The research process in nursing (7th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Gray, J. R., Grove, S. K., & Burns, N. (2013). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (7th ed.). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Grove, S. K., & Cipher, D. J. (2016). Statistics for nursing research: A workbook for evidence-based practice (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Houser, J. (2011). Nursing research (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2014). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (8th ed.). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2013). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice (8th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Scheepmans, K., Bernadette, C.D., Paquay, L., Van Gansbeke, H., Boonen, S., & Milisen, K. (2014). Restraint use in home care: A qualitative study from a nursing perspective. BMC Geriatrics, 14(1), 1-7.
Suresh, S. (2015). Nursing research and statistics (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Wood, M. J., & Ross-Kerr, J. C. (2010). Basic steps in planning nursing research: From question to proposal (7th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.