Men’s Health, Article Critique Example

Title

The title of the paper, “More than a place to do woodwork: a case study of community-based Men’s Shed” (Ballinger, 2009)  provides insight to the reader on the phenomenon of interest; however, the title does not fully provide an exact indication of what a Men’s Shed is.  The title does, however, provide the population of interest, such as Men, but does not indicate the age of group of men. In addition, the title does not convey the context of the study.  It is unknown the purpose of the study from reading the title, as well as the methodological approach of the study.  For an individual that is not familiar with that term, further reading of the abstract is required.

Abstract

The Abstract in this article is broken down into each section of the paper.  For instance, the Abstract contains a section on the Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.  Within these sections, the main points are described.  The Background section gives an overview of -what a Community-based Men’s Sheds program is, which is helpful since the title did not convey that information.  The Methods section describes provides an overview on how the researchers compiled their information through interviewing participants.  The Results section provides an overview on the results that were found from the interviews.  The Conclusion summarizes the main findings.  The abstract does build on from the title in that it summarizes the research from the Men’s Shed program.  Overall, the Abstract provides information that enticing the reader to continue reading the remaining portions of the paper.

Introduction

The purpose of this research critique was to evaluate a peer reviewed journal article in the nursing field in order to obtain valuable information on conducting qualitative research for future professional and educational purposes, as well as to learn different types of methods that are used in the medical research field.  (Marshall, 2005)  The paper that was evaluated in the critique was the study, “More than a place to do woodwork: a case study of community-based Men’s Shed (Ballinger, 2009)”.  The study was focused and related to men’s health issues in Australia.  The paper indicates that due to the rates of diseases and the decreased health status of men in Australia brought about the awareness of men’s health in Australia.  (Fletcher, 1992)  The paper then describes the research that has been put into men’s health in Australia and the specific type of age group and social status which was the focus. The paper suggests that the purpose for focusing on these groups of men is due to the link between these employment statuses and lower health status compared to white collar positions.  (Turrell, 2006).  Other research has agreed with Ballinger (2009) and has found this link between economic statusto be linked higher risks of disease and death.  (Wilkenson, 2006)   Other research in the article indicates that both physical and mental status is linked to socioeconomic status.  (Alder et al. 1994; Conger el al., 2002)

In this paper, the authors place a main focus on the promotion and recognition of a broader population-based program, such as a Community-based Men’s Sheds program.  The authors describe this program as an example that is promoting psychosocial health in older men which allows the readers to get a good understanding of the intent of the research.  In addition, the authors are able to describe the type of program to further give the reader an idea of the purpose of.For instance, the authors describe the term “shedlessness” as a change in living situation in which older men no longer has access to a private shed to undergo activities such as wood work, mechanics, metal work, and etc.  The meaningfulness of the study is then supported by other literature which the other presents on significant research by Golding (2006).  , it was found that men who regular met and socialized with other men and tools in a shared workspace in a community based program, had a significant effect on health, retirement and aging.

Research Problem

The authors provide background information on the topic and support the topic with primary journal articles with previous literature.  The quality of the sources used for the background information and literature review are from primary journal articles.  The theoretical framework is introduced in a direction to lead the reader to the research problem and question, which is important as in the nursing research field, it is critical to establish a framework in the study. (Caldwell, 2010)   The research problem for the paper was easily identifiable in the paper.  It was clearly stated in the last two paragraphs of the Introduction section that the purpose of the study was to further provide research on Men’s Sheds in Australia and its link to health and well-being.  In addition, the authors indicate that the purpose was to conduct a qualitative study to investigate the outcome and experience of men that participate in community based Men’s Shed programs.  The research problem did correlate with the literature review that was presented throughout the paper.

Research Design and Sampling

The researchers in this study used a case study to investigate the men’s experiences.  The authors describe that case studies are used in these types of research because they offer insights into the contexts of the program.  In addition, the authors indicate that case studies are also useful for developing hypotheses for future studies.  This study was designed using a case study from a Men’s Shed located in a small town in Victoria, Australia.  The researchers describe the group that was sampled, as well as the setting and sampling that was used in the study; however, it is known about the sample size until the results section.  The authors also state the population of the town and the percentage of individuals 55 years of age and older.  In addition, the authors indicate the SEIFA Index (income, education status, employment status) in order to illustrate the  socioeconomic status. It was indicated that the town’s average was 967.1; whereas, the average in Australia is 1000.  In order to support their reasoning for choosing the particular sampling which was conducted, the authors describe the program itself and how the participants were offered to join the study.

In order to conduct a study that explores experiences and compares those experiences to health status, the authors chose to use a qualitative sampling method through interviewing the participants. The authors also indicate that they selected individuals based on variations in age and the amount of time they have participated in the Shed program.  There is no indication if any data analyses were conducted to determine the average amount of time the interviews were conducted.  The authors also indicate that coding was used to determine the qualitative data into quantitative data.  The authors support this use of coding from previous research conducted by Liamputtong (2005) and Creswell (2003).

Data Collection

As previously mentioned, the methodology of the experiment in interviewing participants was approved by the La Trobe University Human Research Ethics Committee, which is appropriate given the study is centered around interviewing and obtaining personal information from male individuals.The study used only one source for their data collection; therefore, they did attempt to use data triangulation.  Data triangulation, which was manipulated from Denzin (1978) identified triangulation as the use of multiple data sources, which converges data from multiple data collections, or uses a research-participant approach.  During this study, the investigator triangulation was used researcher-participant method.

There is no indication of the qualification and background of the researchers or staff that interviewed the participants and collected the data.  Furthermore, although the study was approved by the Human Rights organization, there were no details to imply that the collection of data decreased or minimized bias or behavioral distortions, how the rights of the participants were being protected, whether the study was properly designed to decrease or increase the benefits of the participants and how the consent from the participants were taken and approved, as the methodology for these details and the types of questions were not described.

Data Analysis

The Data Analysis was not properly described.  The authors describe how the information was translated from qualitative to quantitative data through the use of coding; however, there was no indication of the statistics that would be used in the study in the Methods section.  In addition, the authors only indicate the data management as being stored as a computer file.  There was no clear direction or step by step clarification on how the data was collected, manipulated and analyzed.  If another individual wanted to replicate this study, it would be extremely difficult as the methodology and data analysis is not clearly established.

In the Results section, the authors finally provide the reader with a sample size.  The authors indicate that there were eight participants.  This is a small sample size and given that only one source or program was used, the results of this study may not be representative of an entire population. However, according to Sandelowski (1995), determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is dependent on the matter of judgment.  In this case, however, the authors do not provide any justification for using such a small sample size.  The types of questions used in the study were in the appendix. An example of the questions, should have been presented in a table in the Methods section to facilitate the reader in understanding the paper.

The results of the study are qualitatively summarized by theme.  For instance, the first theme that is described is the “sense of purpose” The authors describe this as the participants all having a sense of purpose and feeling of usefulness when going to the Shed program.  The authors even quote the participants answers in these themes and state the participant’s name.  From a scientific perspective, this information should have been more general and the answers should have been transformed immediately into the coding method.  The authors placing direct quotes into the paper decreases the reliability of the results from a statistical and quantitative standpoint.

The authors did not provide any statistical analyses and only one Table was provided in the report.  The Table was a summary of the characteristics of the eight participants.  The coding therefore that was described in the method section was not used.  Only qualitative data was described.  Therefore it is hard to justify if the analysis yielded an appropriate product in this study.

Trustworthiness

The methods that were used in this study did not enhance the trustworthiness of the data and analysis.  Again, there was no scientific or statistical support to increase the trustworthiness of the data collected. In addition, the authors confuse the reader by talking about coding in the methods and then presenting only qualitative data in the results section.  In addition, the authors do not describe main points of the study in the methods section, which decreased the credibility of the project.  Furthermore, the researchers did not document the research procedures sufficiently enough to confirm the findings.

Discussion

The authors begin the Discussion though indicating the study appeared typical of the Men’s Sheds in Australia and refer to Golding’s (2006) study; however, this is somewhat confusing in regard to the research question that was initially asked, as Golding (2006) describes how the men paid coordinators at the Shed program.  The authors then describe the similarity of this study with Hayes (2001).  The authors indicate that like Hayes, the men participating in the Shed program were retired and that the Men’s Shed program provided a place with purpose or self-identity. This information suggests that the current study showed no different results from previous literature.   This suggestion is further supported with the results from another study conducted by Graves (2001).  Graves illustrated that the men in the Shed program also showed that the program provided them with a sense of purpose and a place to be productive or useful.

There was one finding in the current study that could be considered unique.  The study found that the social aspect of the program was crucial to the men participating in the program.  Therefore, future studies or developments in the Shed program could use this crucial information to entice or keep more individuals in the program.  In addition, the implication of good social networks and its correlation with health was also suggested.  The authors do support this particular finding with previous research conducted in four different studies (Seeman, 2000; Berkman, 2000; Eng, et al., 2002; Giles, 2005).  All of these studies suggested that the men who were socially isolated from other people were at a higher risk of death compared to men that were in social circles

Limitations

There were limitations to the study.  Since the authors used a small sample size and conducted a qualitative research study, the results cannot be statistically analyzed as significant or not.  In addition, during the summarization of the results, the authors use words such as the participants were “appreciative” or “proud”.  Again, there is no quantitative data to support the questions and feelings that were given from the participants.  However, the information that was collected did illustrate a meaningful picture of the question that was being investigated.  The answers from the participants did provide positive findings on how the participants were happy with the program, which could suggest that the program is useful and could potentially help with health effects.  This supports the notion that the themes in the results are logically connected to each other.  In fact, the themes that were presented in the Results were used because they were common answers and topics that were brought up from each of the participants.  The ffectiveness of the results, however, is decreased from the lack of figures or models in the report to help summarize or illustrate the results.

Application to clinical practice & recommendations

The study provides insight into the Men’s health field and nursing practice.  The results from the qualitative study suggest that older Men can benefit from such programs as the Men’s Shed program.   The study also suggests that these types of programs can help increase the health of men through positive interaction and social outings with other individiuals.  It is recommended, however, that a quantitative study is performed in order to obtain statistical results.

Conclusion

The study concludes with discussion that the study was consistent with other studies in that the Men’s Shed appeared to give the participants a place for usefulness and purpose.  The authors also indicate that not all programs will provide health benefits for men who participate in this program.  Overall, the study needs to have a quantitative approach and incorporate the medical history of the participants in order to correlate health with the program.  In addition, quantitative approach may offer more significant results and provide a better path for the development of these programs.

References

Adler, N.E., Boyce, W.T., Chesney, M., Cohen, S.,Folkman, S., Kahn, R., & Syme, S.L. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health: The challengeof the gradient.American Psychologist. 49:15–24.

Ballinger, M. L. (2009).  More than a place to do woodwork: a case study of a community-based men’s shed. Journal of men’s health6(1): 20-27.

Berkman LF and Glass T. (2000).  Social integration, social networks, social support and health. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, editors. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Caldwell, K., Henshaw, L., & Taylor, G. (2010). Developing a framework for critiquing health research: An early evaluation. Nurse Education Today, 31(8

Conger, R., Schofield, T.K., Conger, K.J., Neppl, T.K.  (2010).  Econcomic Pressure, Parent

Personality and Child Development: An Interactionish Analysis.  Hist Soz Forsch. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 January 3.Published in final edited form as:Hist Soz Forsch. 35(2): 169–194.

Creswell JW.  (2003).  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. California: Sage Publications.

Denzin, N.K.  (1978).  The research act: A Theorectical Introduction to Sociological Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Eng P, Rimm E, Fitzmaurice G, Kawachi I. (2002).  Social ties and changes in social ties in

Relationto subsequent total and cause-specific mortality and coronary disease incidence in Men. Am J Epidemiol. 155:700–9.

Giles LC, Glonek GFK, Luszcz MA, Andrews G. (2005).  Effects of social networks on ten year survival  in very old Australians: the Australian longitudinal study of aging. J Epidemiol Community Health. 59:574–9.

Golding, B.  (2006).  A profile of men’s sheds in Australia: Patterns, purposes, profiles and experiences ofparticipants: some implications for ACE and VET about engaging older men Associate Professor Barry Golding, School of Education, University of Ballarat.AVERTRA Conference, Wollongong, on Proceedings CD (Ed.F. Ferrier)

Graves K. Shedding the Light on ‘‘Men in Sheds’’ Report. (2001). Eaglehawk, Vic: Community Health Bendigo, State Government Victoria, Depatment of Human Services; 2001. Available at: http://www.health. vic.gov.au/archive/archive2004/mis/index.htm.

Hayes R. (2001). Developing an Intersectoral Strategic Framework for Men’s Health Promotion, vol. 2.Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation; 2001

Liamputtong P, Ezzy D. (2005). Qualitative research methods. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Marshall, G. (2005). Critiquing a research article. Radiography. 11(1):55-59.

Seeman T. Health promoting effects of friends and family on health outcomes in older adults. Am J Health Prom 2000. 14(6):362–70.

Turrell G, Stanley L, de Looper M, OldensburgB. Health inequality by occupation. (2006) HealthInequalities Monitoring Series no.2. Canberra: Australian Institute of Healthand Welfare.

Wilkinson R, Marmot M, editors. (2003). SocialDeterminants of Health: The Solid Facts.2nd EditionGeneva: WHO. Availableat: http://www.euro.who.int.document/e81384.pdf