Diabetes Patient Care Meta-analysis Article Critique

Diabetes Patient Care Meta-analysis Article Critique

Global diabetes prevalence is drastically increasing making it a public health concern.
However, the greater challenge arises from the fact that, irrespective of this global trend in
diabetes prevalence, there is no cure for the disease and it’s usually controlled through self-
management which calls for patient empowerment. This meta-analysis study under critique
evaluates the perception of diabetes patients towards self-management, and the objective of
this critical critique is to provide a critical quality appraisal of the study.

A critical quality appraisal of this meta-analysis study reveals that the results were both
quality and valid because of the author’s previous experience and conducting of various
measurements using tools such as an adapted version of the CASP, a meta-ethnographic
approach, as well as constructing different mindsets for the lines-of-argument’s inference
consideration. The study data was collected and evaluated through seven steps that conform
to what is normally accepted and a systematic search was carried out in the Medline and
CINAHL databases. The study review was conducted through an iterative reading of each
article on basis of four central metaphors that influenced diabetes patients’ empowerment, but
only one reviewer was involved although two independent reviewers are recommended.
The results of the study were nine qualitative studies where four, three, one and one were
intervention studies; culture-specific barriers’ related; diabetes patient self-management
factors; and psychological distress respectively. In total, 197 diabetics were interviewed in
the studies reviewed and included mostly aged between 50 and 69 years. However, this
strength of the meta-analysis study can be construed as a limitation since neither refutation
nor reciprocal translation was possible. No actual statistical analysis was done meaning there
was no confidence level considered, but various lines-of-argument synthesis were employed
to achieve the aim of the study. The obtained results are applicable to patients care since their

concerns and needs provided an insight into holistic diabetes care, thus it led to revelation of
different elements of diabetics’ empowerment strategies for improved self-management.

Clark, A.M., Savard, L.A., Spaling, M.A., Heath, S., Duncan, A.S. & Spiers, J.A. (2012).
Understanding help-seeking decisions in people with heart failure: A qualitative
systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(2), 1582–1597.
DerSimonian, R. & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials. Controlled Clinical
Trials, 7(3), 177-188.
DiCenso, A. & Guyatt, G. (2005). Applying results to individual patients. In: A. DiCenso, G.
Guyatt, & D. Ciliska, Evidence-based nursing: a guide to clinical practice (pp. 481-
489). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
DiCenso, A. & Guyatt, G. (2005). Incorporating patient values. In: A. DiCenso, G. Guyatt, &
D. Ciliska, Evidence-based nursing: a guide to clinical practice (pp. 490-507). St.
Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
Doi, S.A. & Thalib, L. (2008). A quality-effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology,
19(1), 94–100.
Ho, A.Y.K., Berggren, I. & Dahlborg-Lyckhage, E. (2010). Diabetes empowerment related to
Pender’s Health Promotion Model: A meta-synthesis. Nursing and Health Sciences,
12(2), 259–267.
Sutton, A. J., Jones, D.R., Abrams, K.R., Sheldon, T.A. & Song, F. (2000). Methods for
Meta-analysis in Medical Research. London: John Wiley.
Titler, M.G. (2006). Developing an evidence-based practice. In: G. LoBiondo-Wood & J.
Haber (Eds.), Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based
practice (6th ed., pp. 439-481). St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Elsevier.

Looking for Discount?

You'll get a high-quality service, that's for sure.

To welcome you, we give you a 20% discount on your All orders! use code - NWS20

Discount applies to orders from $30
All Rights Reserved, Nursingwritingservice.com
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.