The current essay provides a summary of the study Smoking Cessation Counseling Beliefs and Behaviors of Outpatient Oncology Providers prepared by Weaver et al. in 2012. This quantitative research analyzes the influence of health care providers on the smoking cessation of oncology patients. Much attention is paid to the description of the methodology of the study performance, as well as the way of choosing participants, assessment research design, and evaluation of obtained outcomes.
Questions and Answers
Was the study approved by an Institution Review Board (IRB)? The study was approved by an Institution Review Board.
Was informed consent obtained from the subject? Informed consent was obtained from participants via email.
Is there information about provisions for anonymity of confidentiality? The researchers did not request to provide any personal patients’ and participants’ information (such as name, address, etc.). Only the information concerning the way and the extent of facilitation of participants in the smoking cessation of oncology patients, the rate of the current smokers, and recent quitters was requested.
Were vulnerable subject used? Vulnerable subjects were not used.
Does it appear the subjects might have been coerced into acting as subjects? The subjects were not coerced into acting as subjects. Participants took part in the research of their own free will.
Is it evident that the benefits of participation in the study outweighed the risk involved? It was evident that the benefits of participation outweighed the risks involved because there were no risks of participation. Benefits include providing relevant information for studying smoking cessation and ability to win “one of two $25 win cards” (Weaver et al., 2012).
Were subjects provided the opportunity to ask questions about the study and told how to contact the research other questions arose? The participants were not provided by the opportunity to ask questions about the study. Also, they were not told how to contact the research if other questions arose.
Were the subjects told how they could obtain the results of the study? Participants were not told of the way they could obtain the results of the study.
Is the research problem area clear? The research problem is clear. It is reflected in the increase of the risk of treatment complications, secondary cancers, lower survival, and treatment efficacy of oncology patients after stating the diagnosis because they do not quit smoking.
Is there a succinct problem statement, the purpose of statement, or research question? The purpose of the statement is succinct. In involves smoking assessment, description of quitting practices, and examination of beliefs concerning smoking cessation.
Are the study variables and the population included? The study contains variables and the population. 74 health care providers who are engaged in outpatient oncology services at oncology canters in the southeast of the U.S. took part in this study.
Can a determination be made as to whether the study was a quantitative or qualitative study? The research was quantitative, because gathered and analyzed information was measurable (for example, the number of patients who were recently / occasionally advised to quit smoking). The obtained figures were transformed into usable statistics used for the determination of existing issues of smoking cessation.
Can a decision be made that empirical data were gathered on the topic of the interest? The empirical data were gathered on the topic of interest because participants’ daily activities were connected with oncology patients’ interaction.
Does it appear that the study was ethical? The study was ethical because no ethical norms were broken.
Is the feasibility of the study evident? The feasibility of the study is evident because participants are directly engaged in the treatment of oncology patients who quit and proceed to smoke after stating the diagnosis. Hence, they can provide relevant information concerning smoking cessation.
Is the significance of the study to nursing apparent? The significance of the study to nursing is apparent because oncology nurses take an active part in providing smoking cessation advice and treatment.
Is the literature review comprehensive? The literature review is not comprehensive. The authors just provide the list of sources in the reference section and occasionally mention several studies and ideas of other researchers concerning the described issue.
Is the literature review concise? The literature review is very concise. The authors do not pay much attention to the sufficient description of the literature used.
Does the review flow logically from the purposes(s) of the study? The review of the study flows logically and consistently from the purpose of the study. The authors clearly define all the steps of the research necessary for reaching set goals.
Are all sources relevant to the study topic? All the used sources are relevant to the study topic. They contain information concerning previous research of smoking cessation of oncologic patients, causes of proceeding to smoke, and barriers to quitting it.
Are both classic and current sources included? Both classic and current sources were used. Current sources provide information concerning the causes and barriers to smoking cessation, backgrounds of smoking behaviors, methods of treatment of nicotine addiction, and risk factors of cancer relapse. Current sources are represented by various modern studies and research concerning quitting of smoking and promoting strategies.
Are paraphrases or direct quotes used most often? The authors use paraphrases most often.
Are both supporting and opposing theory and research presented? In the current study, only supporting theories are presented.
Can a determination be made if sources are primary or secondary? The determination whether sources are primary or secondary cannot be made. The authors use numerous journal articles, books, and studies. However, there is no conclusive presumption that these sources are secondary.
Are all sources that are cited in the article on the reference list? All the sources that are cited in the article are included in the reference list.
Do the references appear to be free of citation errors? There are no citation errors in the references.
Is the framework clearly identifies? The authors clearly define the framework and the sequence of the study.
Is the framework based on a nursing theory or a theory from another discipline? The framework is not based on nursing theory. It is grounded on the physician treatment of oncology.
Does the framework appear to be appropriate for the study? The framework appears to be appropriate to the study because it covers the topic and provides relevant outcomes.
Are the concepts clearly defined? The concepts are clearly defined.
Are the relationships among the concepts clearly presented? The researchers provide a clear presentation of the links between concepts.
Is (are) the propositional statement(s) identified that will guide the research question(s) or hypothesis(es)? The researchers identify propositional statements which guide hypotheses.
Are operational definitions provided for the theoretical concepts that will be tested? The researchers do not provide operational definitions for the theoretical concepts.
Does the researcher relate the study findings back to the study framework? Close relations between the study findings and the study framework are shown in the article.
Do the study findings provide support for the study framework? The study findings fully support the study framework with relevant outcomes.
Does the study contain a hypothesis of hypotheses? The study contains two hypotheses.
Is each hypothesis clearly worded and concise? Each hypothesis is clearly worded and concise.
Is the hypothesis written in a declarative sentence? Hypotheses are not written in a declarative sentence.
Is each hypothesis directly tied to the study problem? Each hypothesis is connected with the declared problem of smoking cessation of oncology patients.
If there is a clearly identifies study framework, is each hypothesis derives from this framework? Each hypothesis derives from the study framework.
Does each hypothesis contain the population and at least two variables? Each hypothesis contains the population and variables (health care providers and the extent of their influence on smoking cessation, as well as oncology patients (current smokers and recent quitters).
Is each hypothesis stated as a directional research hypothesis? If not, is the rationale given for the type of hypothesis that is stated? Each hypothesis is stated as a directional research hypothesis because the researched performs specifically hypothesizing of the influence of providers’ interventions and the extent of their acknowledgment on the effectiveness of smoking cessation.
Is it apparent that each hypothesis can be empirically tested? The study provides empirical testing of each of the stated hypotheses.
Does each hypothesis contain only one prediction? Each hypothesis contains several predictions.
Is the design clearly identified and described in the research paper? The design of the study is not clearly identified and described in the paper.
Is the design appropriate to test the study hypothesis(es) or answer the research question(s)? The researchers use the survey design method. It is appropriate for answering the research question because it enables an analysis of great extent of various data concerning the smoking cessation of some particular population (oncology patients). Relevant vision on existing trends and barriers is provided by the applied design.
If the study used an experimental design, was the most appropriate type of experimental design used? The researchers used descriptive design in their study. If the study used the experimental design, the most appropriate type would be quasi-experiment, because it would estimate the causal impact of interventions of health care providers on smoking cessation of oncology patients.
If the study used an experimental design, what means were used to control for threats to internal validity? External validity? As it has been mentioned above, the researchers used the descriptive design in their study
Was the assignment of subjects to the experimental and control group clearly described? Experimental and control groups obtained a clear description of the assignment of subjects.
Does the research design allow the researcher to draw a cause-and-effect relationship between the variables? The research design enables to create cause-and-effect links between the extent of the provider’s knowledge and intervention into the process of smoking cessation of patients and the number of oncology patients who ceased smoking.
If a nonexperimental design was used, would an experimental design have been more appropriate? The experimental design would have been less appropriate because it would have not provided the relevant vision of the existing problem of smoking cessation.
What means were used to control for extraneous variables, such as subject characteristics, if a nonexperimental design was used? The extraneous variables were controlled by the performance of the preliminary questionaries’ for the determination of the competence of providers and their involvement in the tobacco interventions.
Does the phenomenon lend itself to study by qualitative methods or would a quantitative approach have been more appropriate? The qualitative methods are the most suitable for the current study.
Does the study focus on the subjective nature of human experience? The study is based and focused on the human experience of health care providers who render services to oncology patients and have an influence on smoking cessation.
Is the specific qualitative approach named and described? The specific qualitative approach is not named and described.
Will the study findings gave significance for nursing? The study is significant for nursing because it shows the necessity of providing additional education concerning smoking cessation for the improvement the efficiency of tobacco interventions.
Does the researcher clearly describe how participants were selected? The researchers provide a clear description of the methodology of selecting the participants. Health care providers who render services to oncology patients at a comprehensive cancer center in the southeast of the United States received several questionnaires for assurance of their competence.
How was the sample size determined? Workers of the center who have sufficient experience of working with oncology patients and used methodologies for the facilitation of smoking cessation were chosen for further studies.
Is the data collection and recording process fully presented? The data collection and recording process was fully presented. These processes were performed via e-mail.
Is it clear how researcher bias in data collection was avoided? The influence of researcher bias in data collection was avoided because the researchers did not have any influence on participants. Any person-to-person interaction and individual’s impact on the obtained outcomes were eliminated.
Is the data analysis method consistent with the purpose and approach of the study? The method of the data analysis is consistent with the purpose and approach of the study because it enables to obtain a clear understanding of the effectiveness of smoking cessation practices and existing barriers to efficient tobacco intervention.
Are the study findings clearly presented and study limitations acknowledged? The study findings are clearly represented in the form of graphs and written conclusion. The authors define clear limitations concerning the place of work of participants and their role in the smoking cessation process.
Are suggestions made for further research based on the study findings? The study findings can form the background for the further research of “national sample of outpatient oncology providers…examination of both local and national provider training efforts and the frequency and types of tobacco cessation interventions” (Weaver et al., 2012)
The current work provides a summary of the article Smoking Cessation Counseling Beliefs and Behaviors of Outpatient Oncology Providers. This study is used by the application of survey design. The methodology of choosing participants, their engagement into the experiment, and the data analysis method are considered to be consistent with the purpose of the study. Consequently, the obtained outcomes are considered to be relevant. However, the article has several weaknesses, such as the absence of the concise literature review and impossibility to determine whether primary or secondary sources were used. Also, the respondents were not provided to be the opportunity to ask questions about the study and were not told how to contact the research.