Critical Analysis of a Published Research Article

Chesterman, John, Linda Bauld, and Ken Judge. "Satisfaction with the care‐managed support of older people: an empirical analysis." Health & social care in the community 9.1 (2001): 31-42.

Title Evaluation

            ‘Satisfaction with the care-managed support of older people: an empirical analysis’ is an appropriate title for the published research. It captures the major aspects as discussed in the journal in a way that ensures ease of understanding by an average user. While the research is extensive and consists of multiple variables, the researchers were keen in devising a deserving title that simplifies the study in its entirety.  Older people are identified as the research targets with primary variables being satisfaction and care accorded to the study subjects.  This makes the title effective and concise.

Abstract Evaluation

The authors unanimously agree that satisfaction surveys are crucial in monitoring healthcare provision for the elderly. The admission forms the foundation for the study care provision in parts of Wales and England. As required, important aspects of satisfaction are introduced to guide the research with reference to the data from previous studies. The researchers identify appropriately the inefficiencies of total reliance on satisfaction levels, hence the independent consideration of each characteristic to reveal unique detail for analysis.  Such an in-depth exploration raises the level of credibility of the study and triggers interests for extensive future research in the field.

Introduction and Literature Review

            The authors refer to other literary works to derive the objective of their analysis. The references enhance the reliability of the analysis, even if a new knowledge is introduced. The researchers identify the focus of the study as the user satisfaction. Where necessary, literary works are criticized through the exposure of weaknesses in their deductions. However, the authors are careful not to offer conflicting information in uncharted areas of care management. Besides, a reiteration of the three aspects of satisfaction as studied was made to sensitize on its importance.

            Sources of data used were mentioned satisfactorily in the introduction to eliminate doubt and to instill confidence on the targeted users. There is also an effort to specify the number of consulted authorities in Wales and England and the age limits of the subjects. Mentioning data collection methods allows the readers to understand what to expect from the study. It also standardizes the research by enhancing its effectiveness.

Sample Evaluation

            The study draws samples from a reliable source (ECCEP) for an interview session. Up to 418 cases were sampled for an interview in the first phase. During a follow-up session (necessitated by the need for confirmation of the data gathered during an initial session), a mere 224 survivors were interviewed and evaluated at home. Natural factors are to blame for the gap between the two samples. Nonetheless, the disparity offers a window for a further gathering of data useful in the course of the study.

Measures

            The researchers deemed it fit to select only three of all the satisfaction measures as used in the previous ECCEP research. Such a move was imperative especially in discarding unnecessary variables to the current study. Moreover, there is a use of closed questionnaire techniques in the three stages to ensure an ease of analysis and evaluation of the data. Some of the interview options involved specific ranges of satisfaction as accorded by the caregivers.  The restrictions introduced initially were meant to enhance the validity levels of the research as required.

Evaluating Methods

            The authors reveal their awareness on the possibility of misleading judgments if there is an overreliance on overall responses. This is evident in the plotted picture for the factors that influence satisfaction in some of the final stage outcomes. As such, a detailed investigation on the existing relationship between varied responses was necessary. The researchers fulfill this through an ingenious four-stage analysis. In the first stage, there is an adequate determination of the frequency of occurrence in the outcomes across all study levels. Secondly, the authors tested the association that exists between separate levels of satisfactions as per the sampled population. This called for inclusion of a Yes/No responses for categorization and simplification of the analytical process.

            Case characteristics were used to predict satisfaction levels for the final outcomes, which included basic information (age, career and sex), attitude to help (dependency or independency), functional capacity (IADL score), physical and mental health problems. A detailed table and box for sample attrition are simplified, clearly outlined and necessary. 

            The study further utilizes an attractive and simple modeling technique for analysis of the outcome that eases its accessibility, but it is notable that there is a possible underestimation of weaknesses in both the initial and subsequent research stages.   The information gathered in these two stages has a potential of misleading the research if precautionary countermeasures are not activated as in the case of this study. Therefore, the researchers should have done more to prevent such shortcomings. Not all is lost, however, as the researchers recommend a detailed solution to the problem as outlined in a separate literary source.

Evaluating Results

            Appropriate tables for simplified results are posted in the study. This ensures ease of reference of the data outcome, especially given the extensive nature of the research and the multiple stages involved. The initial table displays frequency distributions for three levels of satisfaction according to the data gathered from the elderly people.  There is a revelation that almost 80% of the interviewed subjects were satisfied with social services provision. The rest either were dissatisfied or had mixed feelings. Such outcomes demonstrate the level of clarity backed by substantial data that can easily be applied in future researches.

            Collapsing data in the three levels for bivariate analysis is a fabrication of information, but it is fundamental in ensuring statistical comparison in relation to the specified and detailed case characteristics of the users. Once again, a detailed table capturing the dependency of satisfaction levels on case characteristics is sufficiently outlined in the paper. For multivariate analysis, comprehensive investigations on individual case studies and levels of satisfactions were conducted and subsequently outlined in the form of a table.

Evaluating Discussion

            The discussion section starts with a reference to a literary work that forms the foundation of the study. The authors echo the introduction of the study to remind the reader of the expectations from the final outcomes. Necessary citations relating to the study are made, especially those that affirm the analytical outcome. While the authors highlight their efforts, they concede that the study has deficiencies that can be mended through additional exploration of the field. They deserve credit, however, for the intensive address to multiple aspects of care provision and management albeit in a single research. In addition, they exposed the relationships levels of satisfaction and several factors including user characteristics, resource levels, carer characteristics and services location. 

            There is an evidence of the inadequacy of support for a claim that a relationship exists between elderly satisfaction and their age limits. Though a possibility exists that this is fueled by the complexity of calculations and intervention of other factors, it is clear that the researchers spent an insignificant time to carry out an in-depth analysis. Instead, they focused on quantitative areas like multivariate analysis. 

            The analysis lean on confirming the previous research and affirming or disapproving unsubstantiated claims from literary reviews. Such efforts reveal the level of extensive research conducted by the authors prior to the study. In fact, it stamps the researchers’ authority on the subject of study while assisting in widening the areas of focus for future analysis in this field.

Putting it all together

            It is possible that the authors’ choice of this field of study for analysis is inspired by the growing life expectancy in the U.K. and the rest of the developed world. As a result, the rising need for care for the elderly and the seemingly irreversible trend calls for an analysis and re-evaluation of the satisfaction levels from the accorded care.  Obtaining data from diversified locations is justifiable because it ensures the credible outcome of the research. Furthermore, the use of multiple analytical and statistical methods solidifies the reliability levels of the outcome. Further, it reveals specific areas of need by the elderly as well as recommendations for carers’ improvement of service provision.

            The use of bivariate analysis exposed links between satisfaction and other variables in the study, thus inspiring future research. The researchers took a great leap in healthcare that may trigger improvements not only in UK's care provision but also in other areas of the globe.