Description
1- first discussion
This study while an interesting one and one that is a good starting point for looking at Stress-related vulnerability and caregiver burnout in familial caregivers is lacking in some aspects in my eyes. Several data points could have and should have, been included to make the study much stronger and more comprehensible. Using a cross-sectional study design in this instance is very interesting and could bring valuable data to the table. However, because of the way the cross-sectional design is being used, I think there is more than a little bias. This study uses the STROBE checklist for evaluating participant’s answers. This checklist is supposed to be used as a presentation device and not as a tool for validation. So using this method as a way to measure the participant’s response with no follow-up lends the study to be less reliable. The study does show fidelity as one of the principles is participant responsiveness, and this study is almost entirely based on the participant’s responsiveness. The study also shows evidence of fidelity by adhering to the original approach of the study in continuing to use the STROBE checklist throughout the ten-month study.
The study has a great weakness when looking at the exposure section of fidelity. The examiners themselves admit to this when discussing “The first limit is represented by the small number of the population under study (n = 69)” (Lobiondo-Wood & Haber, 2022). The small sample size of the study limits the exposure to other confounding variables and other possible data sets that could help with this study. Another problem with this study’s data could be that there was “Another data [set] missing about both patients’ and caregivers’ illnesses and comorbidities” (Lobiondo-Wood & Haber, 2022). Seeing as the mean age of the caregivers in this study was sixty and over there is a high likelihood of comorbidities. If the study also included an evaluation of caregiver and Parkinson’s patient comorbidities there could have been more information to explain stress levels. Further expanding the study in sample populations, evaluation tools, and more in-depth evaluation of caregivers this could be a study that could be used for more than just a jumping-off point.
# 2- second discussion
The research article by Enrico and colleagues is a study on the caregivers of Parkinson’s patients who also have dual roles as family members. While doing a critical appraisal of the study, my interprofessional Journal Club has analyzed the strengths and weaknesses. The first strength of this study is that while the study is on those who are not healthcare-educated, the research is collected and illustrated by people who are familiar with healthcare and the type of research involved. Another strength of this study is the ability for the caregivers who are lay people to complete the tasks needed for this research, such as filling out the SVS and the intervention rating assessment. A point in the article that my team believes to be a weakness is that the author seems to be slightly lost in their wording as the sentences easily lose the audience. Another weakness in this article is that the conclusion seems to lead to more questions rather than finalizations or “conclusions”. The article also has some conflicting biases. One bias is that the caregivers may feel all or some of the listed nursing interventions may be useful because they have not been properly educated on why each intervention could/should be used. Another proposed bias in the research article is that the family caregivers may find the online support groups or other ‘positive outlook’ supplements as aggravating or unhelpful because they family caregivers could believe that their situation is unique or different, leading them to ignore these vital tools out of ignorance or distrust. This in turn leads to bias because it could skew the study in an unintentional way based of of the families beliefs of their values or their family members. There is evidence of fidelity because all of the family caregivers are given the same assessments and evaluations. The study is also carried out in the way it was originally sought out to be, which further supports the fidelity in the research.
