Reading an article is like walking into an unknown forest; a hiker does not want to be frightened. An article should not startle the reader, much like a welcoming forest does not want to scare away visitors. The hiker needs time to adjust to the surroundings without surprises, gradually adapting as he or she walks into the forest to explore it further. Adaptation can be achieved by introducing your topic with a good flow and appropriate foreshadowing of what to expect in the paper. Foreshadowing is much like how the sound of running water in a forest lets you know a river is nearby to explore. Easily accessible paths can provide the opportunity to enjoy the scenery more and take in more information without worrying of tripping and incurring injury. Obstructions, such as monuments, in nature’s beauty can be a sore on the eyes and deterrence from venturing further. If presented correctly, man’s additions to the surroundings can be pleasantly accepted. Illustrations in papers are similar to monuments and take the form of figures and tables. Explanations should be given for the illustrations like a historical plaque in a National Park gives historical background and relevance. Although mountains and hills in trails can be enjoyable, a rugged path can become tiresome to hike. An article should intrigue the reader enough to keep them going and a not be fraught with tiresome though in deciphering the article. A good flow in a paper has a good trail to follow and good bridges. Well constructed bridges ensure successfully getting to the end of the trail.
The article by Thain, A. and Wales, A. (2005) is the focus of my research critique for this paper. It is successful in introducing the article and giving an overview of what is inside. The article’s abstract summarizes its entirety like a well written and brief brochure and map of a National Park. The intentions are laid out to apply the results to a cancer information portal in Scotland. However, the actual trail is rough, the bridges are in bad shape, and has too many obstructions. The point of the article is made very clear from the beginning followed by an attempt to expand on the data. New, unconnected, and indirectly relevant ideas are introduced throughout the article. Following is a detailed analysis of my hike on this trail.
Tripping along the Trail
The abstract is clear and concise in covering the major points in the article. This clarity is helpful in journal databases searches and to capture a potential reader's attention. The objectives, method, results, and conclusion is addressed. In turn, who, what, when, where and, why questions are identified. The method section of the abstract has exact dates and times, immediately giving the relevance and an idea of the extent of the research. Importance and researcher’s intentions are written in a logical format. This logical flow changed further into the forest.
The title of this article “Information needs of specialist healthcare professionals: a preliminary study based on the West of Scotland Colorectal Cancer Managed Clinical Network” and the first paragraph summarizes the article for a reader to understand what the subject of the article could be. The background section of the article bombards you with historical and geographical information. Lack of flow and connection between the sections make it harder to follow. The background section introduces the following topics: patient journey, library and knowledge services, and access to electronic resources (Pp. 134). Patient Journey is not explored any further while the other two are examined in detail. Patient Journey does give context behind the type of network being researched and importance of the information being accessed. A literature search is mentioned to be found in a previous article, but, no footnotes are given to indicate how to access the article (i.e.: author name or article title).
The methodology introduces the questionnaires and interview methods. The authors elaborate trivial details such as what colour of paper to use for the questionnaires. A pilot study questionnaire is mentioned but its impact on the current study is not given nor is whether or not the data from the pilot study is included in the results being presented. SPSS is mentioned as the package used to analysis the quantitative data and spreadsheets for qualitative. The technical and data issues should have been further expressed in this section such as the number of respondents that replied, types of tables used in SPSS and sampling methods. Ethical issues in executing interviews with healthcare respondents on the types of cancer information are not discussed. As the information affects patient care, I think these issues should have been included or at least reasoned on why ethics were not part of this study. The authors give reference to other related source of information that can be found on online appendices, but no website addresses are given. The methodology section has several one sentence paragraphs and introduces confusing subheadings that look alike but they could be actually in hierarchical relation. This confusion becomes more problematic in the results section.
In the results section, information starts to be littered around the forest without context or explanation (other than what the illustrations lead the reader to believe). An attempt at giving structure is given at the beginning of the results section by telling the reader that “for each topic the results from the questionnaire are followed by the findings from the interviews” (Pp. 135). The data is then rushed through in the paragraphs. An example of this is the paragraph:
“Training methods and issues that could influence attending sessions. The options for training methods and the number of people who would use each are listed in Table 2.” (Pp. 136)
That is all the data given on training methods with no elaboration on how these methods influence attendance. The table used does not provide understanding other than how many people like what kind of method. The paragraphs that do explain the data in the charts are effectively presented and provide better understanding of the research. However, new data that is not related to the illustrations are introduced in same paragraphs. Each graphs’ purpose should have been explicitly rather than implicitly implied.
The questions listed in the methodology section are not reflected in the results section. For example, "access to information" is the first paragraph in the results section but is the third point on the list. With the way section heading is worded, it could also encompass the “cancer information” and “library services” bulleted points. Few items on the list are further explained and new items are introduced such as training. Because of the confusing headings, training could be a sub section to access but is not clear. In Figure 1, the discrepancies between what is proposed to be discussed in the questionnaires and the results can be seen in contrast to other sections of the article.
The discussion section discusses the limitations in obtaining the questionnaires; the bias towards doctors in the mailing list is addressed. The subheadings are poorly designed in connecting the articles’ sections. The discussion does relate to the results, but the reader must decipher the relationships between the sections and information discussed. The research is discussed in four sections (see Figure 1) of what the authors deem most important. It would have been interesting if the authors discussed the connection of the study’s results with the earlier explanation of the patient journey to connect the whole paper, giving it more strength. Indications of future study possibilities are implicitly suggested in discussing the limitations of the research and the other health care roles that could be included in a study.
Practical use of the study is discussed in the conclusion, as promised in the abstract. A conclusion should conclude the introduction, not bring in new information to the reader's attention. This conclusion elaborates how the information has been used in creating a cancer portal (the portal was briefly referred to in the introductory paragraph). The portal may have been more relevant in the background or discussion section to provide better understanding the purpose of the study and how the portal reflects the results. Discussing the portal in the conclusion makes sense to demonstrate how the data was used and real-life applicability. The last two paragraphs do have a concluding tone that would have sufficed for this section.
Observing the Obstructions
The author switches between figures and tables. The tables are raw data and figures are multi-shade vertical bar and pie charts. Having two or more illustrations of differing types on a page is confusing and hard to follow; this is an indication of too many obstructive objects along this trail. There is a lack of consistency in format as well. Two different styles of pie charts were used: one with pieces spread and the other kept together in a circle. The multi-colour style of the bar charts should have been thought through more thoroughly for a grayscale print. Figure 4 is the clearest and most visually appeasing. The reader is given a hard time to understand the article intuitively and by glance.
Validity and Reliability of the Bridges and Trails
Validity and reliability must be questioned in this article. The data collection methods are spread throughout the article. As a hiker along this trail, I can walk along the trail but do not trust the bridges’ construction. First, it is noted in the article that the survey is based on questions from the Beatson Oncology Centre Library but it is the location of the centre is not indicated. This would be relevant in knowing whether it was urban or rural library. In the data, it was found that people in the larger urban area Glasgow had more access to the information; the location of the library could be a factor.
Second, as mentioned earlier in this critique, earlier uses of the survey and its impact on the current study is not indicated. The sampling method is understood as everyone on the mailing list was sent a letter of which a third replied then a cross section of fifteen respondents was approached to interview (of which eleven were interviewed). Of the interview respondents, the authors suggest they represent the five boards and various roles, but no breakdown of the roles is given as they had done for the questionnaire responses.
Thirdly, the way the methodology is explained could have been better by giving more information as to how they concluded the data to be reliable and valid in this study. The representativeness of the interview sample is not discussed therefore the reader can question the applicability of the interview data to an entire cancer network. Meanwhile, the questionnaires are examined in this way to allow for reliability. The validity is addressed in explaining how the mailing list used catered more to doctors (and apparently since changed) and lack of representation of the primary sector.
The methodology section could have been explained in less trivial details and gave more markers of how the results were achieved. An example of this could be discussing the types of tables used in SPSS or the coding method of the interviews. Overall, the article can pass as having valid and reliable data but not without a certain amount of skepticism.
Evaluating the Hike
The trail was confusing and required backtracking to make sure every detail was covered and understood. Even walking the trail required careful concentration to not trip and fall and close evaluation of the bridges. I do not know if it was time or article length constraints, but I believe the article could have had a better flow and linkage. It could be the way of writing for that particular discipline, but I have read much better written articles than this from the health field. The reader gets more out of reading the brief brochure than walking the actual trail. Yes, you do get to find out the details of the results in taking the hike, but hardly seems worth it to find out exactly what the abstract promised in a confusing layout. I learned that there is such thing as having too many illustrations in a paper, especially when they are used as primary sources of data rather as visual elaborations on the data presented. Going back to the hiker in a forest metaphor, this paper was not as fun of a hike as laid out in the brochure.
Thain, A., & Wales, A. (2005). Information needs of specialist healthcare professionals: a preliminary study based on the West of Scotland Colorectal Cancer Managed Clinical Network. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 22(2), 133-142.
Comments