January 10th, 2018
Kozol’s essay, “Still Separate, Still Unequal”, argues that the continued inequality in American edu[...]
|Type of study||Qualitative||Quantitative|
|Study||Jerlock, M., Gaston-Johansson, F. & Danielson, E. (2005). Living with unexplained chest pain [Issues in Clinical Nursing section] Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14(8), 956-964, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2005.01195.x||Dumont, C. J. P., Keeling, A. W., Bourguignon, C., Sarembock, I. J. & Turner, M. (2006). Predictors of vascular complications post diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary interventions. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 25(3), 137-142.|
|Purpose||Describing “patients experience of unexplained chest pain, and how the pain affects their everyday life” (p. 957).||To identify risk factors for vascular complications following cardiac catheterization (CC) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).|
|Sampling method||Convenience sampling approach was employed, on patients at an emergency department of a teaching hospital in Sweden. The inclusion criterion screened for aspects such as age in case of increase in cardiac disease-risk with age, absence of identifiable organic cause of chest pain and frequency of pains.||Convenience sampling of patients who had undergone CC or PCI in three-year period from 2001 to 2003 was used. Inclusion criteria included age (> 21 years) and use of standard interventions (e.g. a 6F sheath for CC) for rendering care to individuals who have undergone such procedures.|
|Practice application||Establishes the need to use illness narratives, to help nurses gain knowledge of unexplained chest pains, thus initiate interventions that betters the well-being of their clients.||The study identifies risk factors such as advanced age, gender (female), presence of venous sheath and PCI, that may necessitate development of better care protocol for individuals exhibiting such risk-factors.|
|Level of evidence||-The article presents level VI evidence, based on a 7-level hierarchy criterion, due to its qualitative design, and descriptive intent.-The strongest level of evidence (level I) comprises primarily a systematic review of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but may also encompass systematic review of non-randomized trials.
-The lowest level of evidence, in this criterion, is opinions provided by authorities and expert committees.
|– The article presents level IV evidence, with its correlation-nature design.|