Critique No 1-
Removing barriers to work: Building economic security for people with psychiatric disabilities by Marina Marrow, Adrianne Wasik, Marcy Cohen and Karen-Marie Elah Perry (2009) (available at http://www.sagepublications.com)
The most significant thing to note about this article in terms of critique is the factum that it does not rely on independent research. Rather, it relies upon two studies carried with a 2-3 year gap in between them in terms of actual research and publication of both. The title is not concise but informative to the extent that it clearly indicates the content but not the location and the research approach that will be employed. At first sight it seems like a general paper with a general opinion of the authors pertaining to economic security for people with psychiatric disabilities. The profile of all four authors which has been presented in the end of the article is clearly set out and it appropriate in terms of their academic occupations and qualifications and relevant to the topic.
The abstract of this article is not very informative as it does not state any hypotheses or possible problems, but it does give a clear outlook of what the authors expect as conclusions of their research analysis. For the type of opinionated article we have at hand this seems fair as an approach given that the introduction has been set out in much greater detail. The assumptions which have been made and the relevant exclusions or inclusions in the same process have been well dealt with under the heading of research (p.657).
Like most studies centering on brevity and case study analysis this article has merged the need for a literature review with the introduction, which seems to be balanced in the “research” and “discussion” where comparisons from other studies and other authors are well dealt with. However, the author of the critique is not quite satisfied with the factum whether the resources and references so utilized could have been more recent.
In terms of other considerations, it is possible to see briefly that although a clear hypothesis does not emerge here until much later when the authors make an effort to draw meaningful parallels between both studies with in the course of analysis and discussion, this is where the main strength of this study lies.
There has been no clear mention pertaining to the methodology however, but the author of the critique remains sceptical of making a research paper out of two varying case studies. Therefore, while the data collection strategy here might have failed Cormack et al’s (2000) litmus test the internal validity of the undergoing analysis is verily secured. Finally, while there is a clear lack of a “Recommendations” the “Discussion” section seeks to make an effort at identifying some areas for future research which could have been better dealt separately, all in all the paper gives some useful insights in terms of catering to the economic well being of mentally challenged individuals, but the main issues affecting its credibility have been mentioned above.
Sesame: Study Of Employment Support For People With Severe Mental Health Problems: 12 Month Outcomes By Justine Schneider, Jan Slade, Jenny Secker, Miles Rinaldi, Melanie Boyce, Robyn Johnson, Mike Floyd And Bob Grove published in the Health and social Care in the Community (2009) 17 (2), 151-158.
This article has the positive attributes of having a clear and concise abstract, which is not only informative but also covers the obvious shortcoming of the title which is not quite informative or explanatory of the real nature of the problem. In addition to that, it lacks conciseness in terms of letting the reader know where these “outcomes” are coming in.
However, these minor shortcomings can easily be ignored when the excellent and precise approach of this article including the academic acumen of these who have contributed to this it. The introduction clearly sets out the main UK policy aims of avoiding social inclusion by catering to the needs of the disabled workers in terms of bringing about conclusions, which will contribute to their better health and safety. It has been clearly identified how this data collection came across that is by choice of 155 employment agencies within the UK jurisdiction. Although the author disagrees with the criteria these agencies were in fact selected with, it still seems that the explanations given with the text pertaining to the nature and methods of data collection make up for that. The data has been consistently collected, monitored and studied for over a year. The variables and the parameters of judgment have been properly set out as well. The aim was to see the role that was being played by the factum of being employed in alleviating the circumstances and wellbeing of a disabled person as well as the contribution being made by the employment agencies in this regard. Thus, the conclusions supporting the role and setting up of employment agencies of the same are well supported by the data given. The conclusions and discussion are well laid out in terms of the future implications the development of specialist employment centres for the disabled and how these findings should influence UK social inclusion for the disabled employment policy in the future. The authors have employed with in their methodological and theoretical framework the use of the Individual Placement and Support model (IPS) and the most commendable part of the study is the fact that the conclusions are properly tied in at the end with the original discussion of this IPS model.
Last but not least, the article shows excellence due its subscription to the relevant and original data collection methods which duly subscribed to ethical and confidentiality requirements. The references are up to date and this study can form interesting conclusions for the future of disabled employment seekers in Britain.
Key Factors For Implementing Supported Employment By Tina Marshall, Charles, A. Rapp, Deborah, R Becker, And Gary, R. Bond (2008) Psychiatric Services
The first thing which comes across about this article is the precision and conciseness with which the title of the article conveys the relevance of the matter being discussed.
The abstract clearly and concisely gives a summary of the methods, results and conclusions. The scholarship involved in the authorship of this article is also commendable in terms of professional and academic abilities displayed.
The data collection and methodology which have been dealt with here pertain to qualitative and fidelity data from a two-year period (2002–2004) which were examined for nine sites participating in the National Evidence-Based Practices Project. This shows that the study’s conclusions have genuine depth as the authors have gone to a certain amount of trouble to properly set out the technical details of the issue and the data collection being carried out. The use of sound methodological models employing scientific methodologies indicates the soundness of the study and the conclusions it holds for employment hiring techniques of the future.
In terms of supported staff then, the author concludes that this study has the potential of forming the basis of further significant research, which can involve more credibility and precision as to the clinical staff attitudes based upon a larger sample base. While studies like this one are no doubt strong indicators of the interest taken by medical practitioners in the improvement of UK social health policy, it can be suggested that a qualitative approach might have brought about slightly more profound outcomes in terms of future implications of policy making in the United Kingdom.
Returning to a more positive note, while the study boosts of careful conformity to the ethical considerations in terms of the administration, construction and design of the methodological pathway chosen here, it is possible to glean here that the privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of the research sample base has been maintained and that there is a clear randomization of the sample base at hand here to give credibility to the study.
However, even then the author has a distrust of quantitative techniques when attitudes are being assessed and conclusions are being made. Despite the positive subscription of the authors in bringing about meaningful discussions and conclusions, it may have been the case that these conclusions could have been better formulated or documented through a qualitative study to better discern the perceptions of patients and carers in a thorough one-to-one manner.
Helping people with severe mental health illness to obtain work: systematic review by Crowther Ruth,Max Marshall, Gary,Bond, Peter Huxley (2001) BJM 2001: 322: 204-208
The article boosts of excellent scholarship and the technical details of the same could not have been defined better. This is a systematic review and accordingly a detailed abstract has been set out by the authors. The introduction and literature review are precise and up to date and accordingly a use of randomized controlled trials has been taken up. Within the Cormack et al (2000) framework, such studies have to demonstrate proper accounting of the trial participants at the conclusion of such trials. This has been properly accounted for as well as a clear summary being set out of the details or the groups and data to avoid distortion in the accuracy of the results.
In terms of judging the robustness of the controlled trial, Coughlan et al (2007) have provided some useful views about reviewing the integrity and credibility of such studies, “Credibility variables concentrate on how believable the work appears and focus on the researcher’s qualifications and ability to undertake and accurately present the study. The answers to these questions are important when critiquing a piece of research as they can offer the reader an insight into what to expect in the remainder of the study. …. Integrity questions, on the other hand, are interested in the robustness of the research method, seeking to identify how appropriately and accurately the researcher followed the steps in the research process”(Coughlan et al, 2007,p.658). In terms of both integrity and credibility of research, it is possible to comment in the light of the above that that the inclusion criteria was well met with proper statistical analyses being set out in tabular forms and applied for the convenience of the reader.
It can be concluded that this is a good study for quantitative analysis in terms of the issues involved here. This can be stated in terms of the sound internal validity offered by this study as well as the acknowledgement of the weaknesses in the study in terms of the research gaps present. Finally, the most positive thing about this study is the way it has handled within limited space a detailed amount of data (numeration and calculations of the SPSS of the questionnaires).
In conclusion, the amount of detail which has been provided and explained in a rather non-technical way here in terms of the sample base is commendable, and the discussions and conclusions match this criteria set out in the aims and objectives to a large extent.
‘Cutting the dash’ – experiences of mental health and employment by Bellina Arthur, Lee Knifton, Margarent Park and Ellen Doherty (2008) Journal of Mental Health Pier Professional 1746-5729
This paper, being a qualitative study, relies on a lot of issues for its internal validity, especially in the light of the current employment and social problems being faced by Scotland and the way governmental and social policy can help alleviate these. The methods of data collection have been well-identified along with an appropriately set out abstract and introduction. However, the author of the critique does feel that the abstract is slightly longer than would have been required in terms of the details it gives.
The methodology relies on “in-depth focus groups with 20 people who have experienced mental health issues undertaken through collaborative research involving people who have experienced mental health issues alongside practitioners and academics” (As quoted in text, p.1). It can be said at the outset that this was an appropriate choice of methodology well explained through means of qualitative analysis as this concerned discerning actually feelings of people relevant to the study.
The reason the author feels that this study can make a valuable contribution to future mental health care literature is its effectiveness in gaining a subjective point of view of the people involved with such problems. It is also suggested based on this article that any future research in this area should aim to explore more profound qualitative paradigms which give a chance to bring through insights less available through numerically collected data. In terms of collective data from the interviews and the issues of confidentiality and ethics involved, it seems that a good job has been done here in line with the Cormack et al (2000) guidelines. The qualitative paradigm has been rightly selected because it is felt that such attitudes are best assessed in a face-to-face discussion where new issues can come to light especially in terms of social issues. The author, is however, not satisfied with the amount of detail provided by the article’s author in terms of the relevant sample base here, and the criteria for their selection does not offer a truly impartial view of what can be expected in terms of the feelings and attitudes of people involved in mental health and unemployment problems in Scotland. Having said that, the discussion is set out quite clearly, and does provide clear indications and an impetus for future research. Finally, in answering the query of whether a quantitative attitudinal study might have dealt better with this issue, the author would deem the answer to be in the negative as the results and discussion display a profound depth, which would have perhaps been difficult to measure through mathematical variables.
Sources Consulted for Critique
Cormack, F.S. (2000) Reviewing and evaluating the literature. In: Cormack D. (ed). The Research Process in Nursing (4th ed). Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Bray, J., Rees, C. (1998) Reading research articles. Practice Nursing; 6: 11, 11-13.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP 2002) Making Sense Of Evidence: 10 Questions To Help You Makes Randomized Controlled Trails Milton Keynes Primary Care Tust.
Forchuk, c., Roberts, J. (1994) How to critique qualitative research articles. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research; 2S: 4, 47-S6.
Lee, P. (2006b) Understanding and critiquing quantitative research papers. Nursing Times; 102: 28, 28-30.
Morse, J.M., Field, P.A. (1996) Nursing Research: The Application 01 Qualitative Approaches (2nd ed). London: Chapman and Hall.
Michael Coughlan, Patricia Cronin And Frances Ryan. (2007) Step By Step Guide To Critiquing Research. Part 1: Quantitative Research British Journal of Nursing, Vol. 16, Iss. 11, 14 Jun 2007, pp 658 – 663
Removing barriers to work: Building economic security for people with psychiatric disabilities by Marina Marrow, Adrianne Wasik, Marcy Cohen and Karen-Marie Elah Perry( 2009) (available at http://www.sagepublications.com)
Sesami: Study Of Employment Support For People With Severe Mental Health Problems:12 Month Outcomes By Justine Schneider, Jan Slade, Jenny Secker, Miles Rinaldi, Melanie Boyce, Robyn Johnson, Mike Floyd And Bob Grove
‘Cutting the dash’-experiences of mental health and employment by Bellina Arthur, Lee Knifton, Margarent Park and Ellen Doherty (2008) Journal of Mental Health Pier Professional 1746-5729
Helping people with severe mental health illness to obtain work: systematic review by Crowther Ruth,Max Marshall, Gary, .Bond, Peter Huxley (2001) BJM 2001: 322: 204-208
Key Factors For Implementing Supported Employment By Tina Marshall, Charles, A. Rapp, Deborah, R Becker, And Gary, R. Bond (2008) Psychiatric Services