Nursing Research Critique
RESEARCH CRITIQUE
Research Critique of
Adherence to Walking or Stretching, and Risk of Preeclampsia in Sedentary Pregnant Women
Ana H. Corona
Western University of Health Sciences
CGN 5306: Biostatistics and Epidemiology
August 1, 2009
Research Critique of “Adherence to Walking or Stretching, and Risk of Preeclampsia in Sedentary Pregnant Women”
Introduction
This paper is to critique a study of adherence to walking or stretching during pregnancy in high risk women who were sedentary and had previously experienced preeclampsia. The introduction of this article does give a sense of the importance of the problem area. This four-year study investigates the effects of walking or stretching on the incidence of preeclampsia and reports on adherence to the intervention and on the secondary outcomes of changes in resting heart rate (HR), resting blood pressure and weight gain.
Statement of the Problem The purpose of the study was to compare a walking exercise to a stretching exercise program during pregnancy in high-risk women who were sedentary and had previous history of preeclampsia. The problem was clearly stated and was a feasible researchable problem. The problem had significance for nursing and for the medical profession and might improve practice and education. While the researcher does a good job of stating why the problem is important, it could have been helpful for him to list numbers of people who are affected by preeclampsia and complications of the disease itself. The research questions were clear by much inquiry. The research questions were: (a) Will previously sedentary pregnant women adhere to an exercise program for 40 minutes a day 5 times a week in the latter half of pregnancy? (b) Is there a difference in adherence to a walking program or a stretching exercise program? (c) How does adherence to walking or stretching change with the advance of pregnancy? and (d) Which exercise is more effective in reducing the risk of preeclampsia?
Research Critique of
Adherence to Walking or Stretching, and Risk of Preeclampsia in Sedentary Pregnant Women
Ana H. Corona
Western University of Health Sciences
CGN 5306: Biostatistics and Epidemiology
August 1, 2009
Research Critique of “Adherence to Walking or Stretching, and Risk of Preeclampsia in Sedentary Pregnant Women”
Introduction
This paper is to critique a study of adherence to walking or stretching during pregnancy in high risk women who were sedentary and had previously experienced preeclampsia. The introduction of this article does give a sense of the importance of the problem area. This four-year study investigates the effects of walking or stretching on the incidence of preeclampsia and reports on adherence to the intervention and on the secondary outcomes of changes in resting heart rate (HR), resting blood pressure and weight gain.
Statement of the Problem The purpose of the study was to compare a walking exercise to a stretching exercise program during pregnancy in high-risk women who were sedentary and had previous history of preeclampsia. The problem was clearly stated and was a feasible researchable problem. The problem had significance for nursing and for the medical profession and might improve practice and education. While the researcher does a good job of stating why the problem is important, it could have been helpful for him to list numbers of people who are affected by preeclampsia and complications of the disease itself. The research questions were clear by much inquiry. The research questions were: (a) Will previously sedentary pregnant women adhere to an exercise program for 40 minutes a day 5 times a week in the latter half of pregnancy? (b) Is there a difference in adherence to a walking program or a stretching exercise program? (c) How does adherence to walking or stretching change with the advance of pregnancy? and (d) Which exercise is more effective in reducing the risk of preeclampsia?
References: Yeo, S. (2009). Adherence to walking or stretching, and risk of preeclampsia in sedentary pregnant women. Research in Nursing & Health, 32(4), August 2009, 379 – 390. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from Wiley InterScience database.