Quantitative Studies

Quantitative Research

Quantitative Studies

Background

Hospitalization of young children for an extended period results in a gradual loss of the ability to cope with the external challenges that may lead to depression conditions called hospitalization syndrome. Children may have a dramatic effect on an individual’s welfare because of the stress and loneliness caused by isolation from the home environment, and a decrease in physical and emotional health may happen consequently. Thus need to design a cheaper and effective intervention, which may lower depression among hospitalized children by stimulating social response and physical body activity. Dog therapy has acted as an innovative intervention that may reduce physiological conditions of hospitalized patients, because of its ability to enhance communication, thus of essence in nursing.  The research purposely evaluates dog therapy as an invention to improve psychological conditions of hospitalized patients—also, the study aims at introducing animal therapy as an alternative to music therapy in healthcare facilities. However, how effective is pet therapy in comparison to art therapy in minimizing hospitalization syndrome among children aged ten to fifteen years?

How do these two articles support the nurse practice issue chosen?

The article by Macauley, (2006) shows that the experimental group enhanced speech-language and improved physical activity due to a decrease in depression levels, stimulated by the dog. Hence, Indicating that dog therapy is effective in minimizing hospitalization syndrome, thus its relevance to the picot question (Macauley, 2006). Whereas, in the article by Berry et al., (2012),  the random increase in patients’ eagerness to participate in dog therapy, following positive reactions towards the dog, shows the effectiveness of dog therapy sessions among patients; thus providing a procedural reference to the picot question (Berry et al., 2012)..

Interventions

The article by Berry et al., (2012), shows sessions were carried out twice a week over five months. The dog sessions took place in the morning hours when participants were active and willing to take part in the activity. Two trained dogs and therapists led the therapy sessions. Each participant interacted with the dog by either walking, feeding, or scraping the dog (Berry et al., 2012). Whereas in the article by Macauley, (2006), they used an eight-year-old trained dog, the rehabilitation sessions happened once per week over three months period. Also, the therapy sessions lasted thirty minutes per individual (Macauley, 2006).

In the picot, The dog received training before the research began to enable it to cope with the stressful circumstances, be friendly with patients, and improve the dog’s obedience during the therapy sessions. Additionally, After each rehabilitation session, experimental participants graded their mood status based on the Likert scale.

Comparison

In the article by Berry et al., (2012), indicates incorporation of human being visitations as an alternative intervention. However, control patients did not interact with the dog during the entire period (Berry et al., 2012). Whereas, in the article by Macauley, (2006), indicates the research incorporated a traditional treatment as an alternative intervention which lasted for three months (Macauley, 2006). However, picot initiated art therapy as a comparison intervention, and patients ranked their mood status using the Likert scale.

Method of Study

The article by Berry et al., (2012) indicates the utilization of a mixed-method technique, a technique that uses integration to analyze both qualitative and quantitative data in one single research (Berry et al., 2012). Whereas, the article by Macauley, (2006) shows the study used a meta-analysis technique, a particular type of systematic review technique that analyses various studies to find the final response or conclusion (Macauley, 2006).

Mixed technique

In the article by Berry et al., (2012), shows comprehensive data obtained through statistical integration of both frequency and duration of behavioral data, for every participant to determine the possible life term effect of the animal therapy session (Berry et al., 2012). However, the study needs cautious planning to include various aspects of research, like a plan for data integration and timing the pattern for qualitative and quantitative data.

Meta-analysis

In the article by Macauley, (2006), provides much productive evidence, because of the many analyses done on the study, for instance, investigating if speech-language is more effective than animal therapy and patients’ eagerness to participate in the animal therapy (Macauley, 2006). Thus the conclusion aids the medical practitioners to have a universal agreement on the best method of treatment. However, difficulty in merging the results of different investigations because of the different approaches used by the researcher.

Results of Study

The article by Berry et al., (2012), indicates they obtained results such as increased random interactions with the dog than humans; this was recorded and observed as patients smiled during the therapy session. Also, physiologically, the control group indicated a decrease in cortisol levels, whereas no changes detected in the cortisol levels for the experimental group. Lastly, the group under study recorded lower stress levels, unlike the control group (Berry et al., 2012). However, the article by Macauley, (2006), recorded that all patients had achieved their goals and objectives over the rehabilitation period, questionnaires indicated that patients under research improved in both physical activity and speech-language (Macauley, 2006).

Implications

The article by Berry et al., (2012), indicates that increase in random interactions with a dog compared with humans, and decrease in depression levels for the experimental group, implies that dog therapy improved the mental activity of hospitalized elderly by lowering stress levels; hence need to incorporate dog therapy in hospitals. Also, the constant cortisol level indicates that dog therapy enhanced mental activity  (Berry et al., 2012). Whereas, the article by Macauley, (2006) shows that the experimental group achieved their goals, improved in both physical activities and speech-language. Thus implying that dog therapy initiated communication among the patients, by providing a topic of debate. Also, the dog acted as a motivator, thus showing the effectiveness of dog therapy among hospitalized patients. (Macauley, 2006).

Outcomes Comparison

Picot outcomes

Dog therapy will be more effective than music therapy by increasing the patients’ willingness to communicate, lower depression levels among hospitalized children, decrease loneliness, and boosts happiness among hospitalized patients.

Outcome comparison

The article by Berry et al., (2012), indicates the experimental group experienced a decrease in depression level, unlike the control group (Berry et al., 2012), an outcome similar to the PICOT’s anticipated outcome. Whereas, the article by Macauley, (2006), showed that the experimental group improved in speech-language after dog therapy sessions (Macauley, 2006), thus similar to the PICOT’s anticipated outcome that the dog will enhance communication among patients.

Ethical consideration

Do not harm

This ethic demands a researcher to avoid intentional harm and reduce adverse effects into the constituents; thus a researcher must gauge the damages with equivalent profit to before starting a study (Fouka & Mantzorou, 2011)

Informed consent

This ethic proposes that medical practitioners should help patients understand the proposed research, including adverse effects. Also, it recommends the patient should freely participate in the study (Fouka & Mantzorou, 2011)

Informed consent

The study by Berry et al., (2012), indicates researchers fully respected this ethic. The researchers received permission from the respective participants, like the parents of children (Berry et al., 2012). Whereas, the study by Macauley (2006), indicates that participants signed the consent form, thus permitting participants to participate in the dog therapy rehabilitation program (Macauley, 2006).

Do not harm

The article by Berry et al., (2012), ensured the dogs attained the recommended training and undertook all standard health measures before the research began (Berry et al., 2012). However, in the article by Macauley, (2006), indicates the researcher used a qualified pet partner who had met the behavioral evaluations and health standards so as not to harm the participants (Macauley, 2006).

References

Macauley, B. L. (2006). Animal-Assisted Therapy for Persons with Aphasia: A pilot study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 43(3), 357.

Berry, A., Borgi, M., Terranova, L., Chiarotti, F., Alleva, E., & Cirulli, F. (2012). Developing Effective Animal‐Assisted Intervention Programs Involving visiting dogs for Institutionalized Geriatric Patients: a pilot study. Psychogeriatrics, 12(3), 143-150.

Fouka, G., & Mantzorou, M. (2011). What are the Major Ethical Issues in Conducting Research? Is there a conflict between the Research Ethics and the nature of Nursing?. Health science journal, 5(1),