Group Therapy for Patients With COPD, Article Critique Example

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, is a tremendous health problem for those who are diagnosed with it; it causes frequent flare-ups and in the worst scenarios, can result in death. This paper will critique an article about a group treatment program that was described in an article called, “A Community Model of Group Therapy for the Older Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Pilot Study.”

The article clearly defined this illness, describing symptoms as well as the reduced quality of life, limitations in functioning, the high costs necessary to treat the disease as well as the tremendous impact on the physical, psychological, social, and emotional lives of its victims. This study, however, focused on the emotional needs that have gone unmet by the communities in which the patients live. The intervention examined consisted of providing group meetings to patients to determine whether they would have an impact on the social isolation, anxiety, and despair experienced following the diagnosis of this chronic, irreversible illness.

The group was conducted at a Community Center, unlike other settings in which such patients can be seen such as outpatient hospital clinics. This setting was likely a less threatening atmosphere than a formal medical setting which was more conducive to patients freely discussing their concerns and fears regarding their illness. The results of the study indicated that participating in group meetings resulted in a decrease of physical symptoms of COPD as well as an enhanced quality of life for those patients. The model used as a basis for intervention was an empowerment model, designed to help the patients take charge of their own lives and illness in an effort to give them more control over the events in their lives.

One of the disadvantages for a study like this was the lack of scientific research design: it did not utilize randomized control methods nor did it apply independent and dependent variables. This made it difficult to evaluate whether or not participation in the group program was the only responsible factor for the improvement in patients’ health statuses. For example, the diseases might have simply improved over time due to other factors such as personal circumstances or changes in medical care. The lack of randomization could have resulted in a study sample that was extremely motivated to participate and therefore to experience improvements in their COPD.

Nevertheless, there was much value in this study, despite its lack of scientific standards. Group counseling or other support can be as valuable to a person with an illness as medication or other medical interventions. Although is not possible to establish with certainty that the group participation was the most influential factor in the improvements of the patients, it certainly did not harm the patients. The mind-body connection has been proven to play a role in the onset of illness as well as its course, many times, so the group support program described in this study appears to be at the very least, harmless, and that the very best, may have played a significant role in the progress of the patients’ illnesses.

The medical community does not with uniformity acknowledge the prominent role that supportive services can play in preventing or managing diseases, so that the group services provided to the patients in this study are not always available to people who love been diagnosed with an illness like COPD. The article certainly makes the case that it would be to the benefit of all such patients to provide or make referrals to group services in an effort to minimize or slow down the progress of such conditions.

Reference

Jean Woo, W. C. (2005). A community model of group therapy for the older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pilot study. Journal of Evaluation for Clinical Studies, 523-531.