Cultural Competence in Health Care, Article Critique Example

This paper has been written to make a critical analysis of a qualitative research entitled “International Cultural Immersion: En Vivo Reflections in Cultural Competence” (Larson, Ott and Miles, 2010) and a quantitative research with a title “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Patient Perceptions of Bias and Cultural Competence in Health Care” (Johnson, Saha, Arbelaez, Beach and Cooper, 2004). The critique of the qualitative and quantitative research articles were based on the criteria recommended by Ryan, Coughlan and Cronin (2007).

Both research were written according to the topic of cultural competence among health care providers being directed towards minority groups like the Hispanic, Latino, (Larson et.al., 2010), along with the African American, and Asian descents (Johnson, et.al., 2004) . However, both papers were written using two different approaches. The first one uses a qualitative-descriptive approach while the latter uses a quantitative cross-sectional study approach. Given the said variation, I will present my analysis using two elements identified in Coughlan, et.al, (2007) critiquing guidelines: (a) believability and (b) robustness of the research.

On the general aspects of believability, the both articles were written and supervised by credible and competent individuals who had the necessary educational as well as professional experience to discuss the topic of cultural competence in health care. This is crucial in presenting a sense of credibility in discussing the topic proposed for discussion. As far as writing style is concerned, in my opinion both article failed to identify the use of terms that may create confusion for their readers. There were several incidents where both articles used jargon and completely left the term unidentified and elaborated. However, I have to acknowledge Johnson and company (2004) when they said that “cultural competence offers several definitions although none of which is universal accepted.” Of the two articles, it was Johnson’s group who provided a clear, well discussed definition and presentation of cultural competence in terms of definition, framework and objective. Larson, et.al. (2010) was too focused on discussing the study itself that it failed to address the premise and key terms of the study. It immediately discussed why the study had been initiated without first identifying the premise or the phenomenon that initially pushes them to conduct the research in the first place. It is also important to note that both researches were able to write a good title that gives the readers a general overview of what to expect in the paper. The keywords had been identified in both of the title which made it easier to recognize that the study was primarily written to address the issues on cultural competence. Although, as far as the article’s abstract is concerned, again Larson failed to deliver and properly address the points raised by Coughlan, et.al (2007) that an article’s abstract must give a clear overview of the study including the findings and recommendations that the authors made. In Larson’s (2010) abstract there was only a description of what the study was aimed at doing. It failed to stress the results as well as the author’s recommendation in developing the findings.

Robustness of the research is defined as “the richness of the content” (Dictionary.com, 2012). This aspect of the study may be reviewed in terms of the following criteria: (a) statement of the phenomenon of interest, (b) significance, (c) literary review (d) theoretical/conceptual framework, (e) methods, (f) conclusion/ implementation and recommendation and (g) reference (Coughlan, et.al., 2007).

Statement of the phenomenon

Both articles were able to both present the existing problem in health care, which is the increasing disparity in cultural competence amongst health professionals. There exist prejudice and stereotyping of patients because most health care providers were not equipped to handle cultural diversities. In Larson and associates’ (2010) research they have identified this problem as originating from the lack of educational orientation of nurses which should have started prior to professional employment. On the other hand, Johnson (2004) had also been clear in presenting and identifying common practices in the hospital settings where most health professions tends to show preference as verbalized by patients themselves on the basis of race and ethnicity.

Significance

Although both articles did mention specifically why the research had been initiated, it still lacks a certain degree of impact. I could not see the point why the study made by Larson and company (2010) had to involve an immersion. Likewise, I felt that incorporating a 40 hours of language ability lesson was not necessary because it was insufficiently discussed and supported by a strong need or claim. On the other hand, Johnson and company’s (2004) research ignored this part altogether. Had it been discussed, I feel that to a certain degree, it was just done in passing. I think this aspect on both accounts had been poorly addressed.

Literary Review

A literary review had been completely overlooked in Johnson and company’s research (2004). While Larson and his group (2010) did include a literary review in their research, it was not thoroughly discussed and the main philosophical underpinnings had not been fully addressed.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

Although not explicitly mentioned, both articles were able to present a clear and concise conceptual framework. Base on the framework submitted by both research I was able to see how the research shall form its shape. It gave a visual image of the approach and the scope that the researchers covered in their study.

Methods

The two articles subject for critiquing uses two different approach. One is a qualitative study and the other is a quantitative research. In my opinion, I think Larson’s (2010) study failed to execute its methodological approach. Although I have to give them credit because the steps had been properly identified and well explained. The group however, failed in executing their perfectly laid-out procedure. This happened when only 7 out of the 13 participants were able to participate in the pre-experience interview which was according to the authors themselves is one of the two main focus of the article, other than the reflective journal.

Findings/Discussion

I was very impress with the detailed presentation and discussion of findings that was presented in the research conducted by Larson and company (2010). Each item that it mentioned on the scope and objectives of the study had all been discussed extensively base on the results generated from the study. The matrix that the authors used was actually useful and effective in generating the right results and bringing out the nature of the study. On the other hand, the use of tables which was further interpreted in Johnson’s (2004) study was also commendable.

Conclusion/Implication and Recommendation

A recommendation and conclusion was not presented in the research of Johnson, et.al. (2004). This is disappointing considering that there had been several issues that had not been properly addressed like for example how discrimination, prejudice and stereotypes can be avoided by health professionals in their daily interaction with patients of different cultural background.

Conclusion

Overall in my opinion, both articles have their strengths and their weaknesses. Both articles have failed in some aspects although have redeemed themselves in some parts. In my opinion, both had been able to give justice to the topic of cultural competence which is badly needed in the health profession. It must be recognize that despite our individual biases, this must not reflect on how we deal with other people especially in giving out the service that they rightfully need and deserve. In the health profession, one must remember that there is not room for biases. This is a noble profession that must be kept in the highest degree of integrity. In addition, I also share the belief of Larson and company (2010) that this quality should start during the educational stages. There is no room for studying in the professional settings, only room for improvement. However, the case of maintaining a good interpersonal relationship between a nurse and a patient should have already been established in the academic setting.

References

Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658-663.

Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12), 738-743.

Johnson, L., Saha, S., Arbelaez, J., Beach, M.C. and Cooper, L. (2004). Racial and Ethnic Differences in Patient Perceptions of Bias and Cultural Competence in Health Care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 101-110.

Larson, K., Ott, M. and Miles, J. (2010). International Cultural Immersion: En Vivo Reflections in Cultural Competence. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 17(2), 44-50.

Robust. (n.d). Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Robustness