The results of this study are presented in tables, diagrams, and in great detail within the text of the paper. The key results and demographic issues are presented, but data presentation is summarised in a results section and then in more detail in the discussion. The findings are not very accessible, but p values are clearly stated, which is important in a study of this kind. PHRU (2009, online), within the CASP tool, poses the question of 'do you believe the results?'. This is an important question. The results seem plausible, and relate to established statistical analysis procedures (see below). But because of the lack of detail about the sample, and the selection method, it is not possible to eradicate the doubts about these findings, in relation to potential bias. But in the context of the author's wider knowledge and understanding about people living with HIV/AIDS, the results seem believable. However, the issue of bias cannot be overlooked. More transparency in reporting of key elements of this study would have made it easier to determine whether these results constitute good evidence for practice (Rosswurm and Larrabee, 1999 p 317; Pepler et al, 2006, p 23).
[email protected] +(1)(855) 626-2755
In 2006, there were seven approved research projects by the IRB and 21 presentations or posters submitted to national and local conferences. In 2007, there were 15 approved IRB submissions and more than 40 presentations and posters submitted.
If you want to learn more about reading and critiquing a research article, view this archived teleforum originally conducted in August 2011 by the Nursing Quality Network. http:///users/ananqn/?id=7216