Type of Research
Serpa, Santos, Peres, Cavicchioli, and Hermida are the authors of the article written in 2011 about the validity of the Braden and Waterlow subscales that are used to predict pressure ulcer risk among the patients who are hospitalized. The chosen article is based on a secondary analysis of a qualitative study. The data was gathered in a medium- and a large-sized general hospital in a Brazilian city (Serpa et al., 2011).
Purpose and Problem
The main problem discussed in the article was connected with pressure ulcers and the necessity to understand their impact on the quality of a patient’s life. The point is that the authors of previous studies focused on several factors of the Braden and Waterlow scales and failed to evaluate the predictive validity of both scales that had to be used simultaneously. The purpose of the article was properly identified by the authors. The authors aimed at evaluating of predicting validity of the Braden and Waterlow subscales and identifying the scales that are more relevant to predict the level of pressure ulcer risk among hospitalized patients (Serpa et al., 2011).
Hypothesis and Research Questions
No hypothesis and research questions were introduced because of the nature of the article and the necessity to focus on the evaluation of qualitative research but not on the identification of new aspects of the problem.
Quality of Literature Review
The literature review of the article is based on the sources taken from different decades. The authors paid attention to the investigations of Bolton in 2007 and Pang and Wong in 1998 in order to clarify what kind of information is available on the subject. Besides, the works of Waterlow in 1988 and Braden in 2002 were used to explain the essence of the chosen subscales and their usage in hospitals. Finally, the authors rely on the investigation developed by Serpa and Santos in 2007 about the predictive capacity of the Braden subscale was analyzed among the patients of two Brazilian hospitals.
The literature review cannot be defined as current because the authors used the material of the 1990s and the 1980s. Still, the majority of information was relevant because the authors explained why they paid attention to old sources and what they wanted to prove.
The goal of the literature review was to introduce the portion of the information available on the chosen topic. Therefore, evidence that the authors introduced was based on descriptions, not critiques.
There was an integrated summary of the current knowledge that could be used to discuss the chosen research problem. The already approved study was analyzed from new perspectives to focus on the worth of the Braden and Waterlow subscales. Besides, the literature review helped to clarify the existing variations in prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers and understand that the gap between the theoretical and practical knowledge had to be investigated (Serpa et al., 2011).
In the article, the authors did not identify a theoretical or conceptual framework because of the chosen nature of the article. The task was to use the already offered study and consider the details in order to understand the level of validity of two subscales. The nursing framework could be clearly identified in the article because the authors used the study where cooperation with hospitalized patients took the leading role.
Serpa, L.F., Santos, V.L.C.G., Peres, G.R.P., Cavicchioli, M.G.S., & Hermida, M.M. (2011). Validity of the Braden and Waterlow subscales in predicting pressure ulcer risk in hospitalized patients. Applied Nursing Research, 24(4), 23-28.