Likewise, the abstract of the paper should also give its readers a little bit of information about the theoretical and conceptual framework by which the paper would operate. It seems that this again is lacking in the abstract of the article. On the other hand, the abstract has shown the different methods used in the paper yet weren’t able to let the readers see how these methods have been used in the article. As mentioned, the abstract of a certain research must give the readers a summary, a look into the vital points of the articles by giving them sneak previews of what the article is about, what was done, the results, etc (O’Reilley, 2007).
It is however in the portion of the abstract labeled as results that it actually met what is expected of it. It gave a clear yet summarized picture of what resulted from the study. It somehow showed what the article wanted to point out (O’Reilley, 2007). It showed the message the article would want to portray. At the same time, these were all reflected in the conclusion. Then again, the conclusion lacks the recommendation that this article would like to put across.
Simply put, the abstract of the paper was not constructed properly in such a way that it would give the readers the summary of the main features of the article. Instead, it only gave unclear and incomplete portions of the pape(O’Reilley, 2007)r. Thirdly, this systematic inquiry would look into the introduction – the statement of the problem, significance of the study, the match between the problem and paradigms used, and the use of qualitative approach (O’Reilley, 2007).
Basically, the article was not able to divide its paper properly, making it hard to find where it really starts. It began by giving the key points of the article – was this still a part of the abstract? Or is this where the real article starts? Identifying and evaluating the research problem and how it was stated is very important in critiquing a particular research. In addition, this would be preparing the one critiquing to lay the foundation by which the other parts of the paper shall be evaluated.
It is through the evaluation of the research problem that the evaluation regarding the methods used, the conceptual underpinnings, the sampling and the other parts of the paper shall be based (O’Reilley, 2007). Though the article was not able to state its research problem effectively, it was still quite able to distinguish the problem it is trying to address- this article aims to study the eleven health institutions that had undergone some changes in order to make their health care system more patient- and family- centered.
A total of eleven health centers that participated in the Vermont Oxford Network Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Quality Improvement Collaborative Year 2000 decided to adopt a family-centered approach in order to improve the quality of their NICUs in taking care of infants (Moore, et al. , 2003). These health centers recognize the need for a family-centered care since this particular approach is proven to improve and at the same time, enhance clinical outcomes for children with special needs.
These health centers also know that in doing so, they would have to give the families of the infants in the NICUs a greater participation in caring for the patient (CommunityGateway. org, 2007). The particular projects were supported by the Institute for Family-Centered Care. Aside from evaluating the changes undergone by the different institutions, the particular article would also look into the successes and challenges encountered by these health centers and how their visions and philosophies efficiently meet the objectives of family-centered approach.