90% of Adults in NSW Ignored Health Guidelines for Chronic Illnesses - Essay Sample

The study discussed is quantitative research conducted in New South Wales (NSW) exploring the factors of chronic infections like poor dieting, smoking, lack of exercise, and lethal alcohol consumption (Harris et al., 2013). The research was triggered by the high fatality rate and disability cases registered in the country because of illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease. The prevalence in the area was identified to be high because 90% of the adult population did not follow the recommended diet, such as vegetables and adequate fruits. Additionally, 62% percent of the population was obese; a third were physically inactive, 21% were extreme alcoholics, and one out of every five individuals was an active smoker (Harris et al., 2013).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In Australia, primary health care (PHC) plays a vital role in addressing risk factors linked to specific people’s lifestyles because it is highly accessible. Evidence in the study proves that clients receive and appreciate lifestyle interventions from community nurses regularly. The service provided through PHC is effective in reducing the rate of smoking, alcoholism, improving the use of proper diet, and physical activity levels (Harris et al., 2013). The practice applied a framework entitled 5As (assess, advise, agree, arrange, and address). The previous studies had shown that community health nurses found their role suitable for society’s health improvement. Considering that the services were well accepted by the clients, the researcher’s main agenda was to evaluate its effectiveness. Thus, the aim of the research was to evaluate the effect of lifestyle interventions from community clinicians on a client’s major health risk factors (Harris et al., 2013).

The methodology applied for the collection of data was quasi-experimental. The settings of the experiment were four communal nursing groups located at NSW in Australia. The sample service groups were chosen randomly from early intervention (EI), or the late intervention (LI). The EI service group was trained to offer nurses support in detecting individuals with great risk of infection; also, they were guided to offer brief interventions (Harris et al., 2013). The coaching was done on two levels; one was identified as the service-level intervention, and the other was the customer-level intervention.

The first stage of the intervention was offered to the service group by University staff and was based on equipping them on how to handle individuals with smoking, nutrition, alcohol, physical activity, and overweight (SNAPW) risk aspects. The process involved an assessment-training program, application of necessary tools, providing clients with a local referral directory, and equipping participating nurses with necessary resources. The second level of intervention was carried out by participants to respective clients. The process, also known as the clinical intervention, was meant to help clients attain and maintain lifestyle choices adjacent to the present Australian recommendations. The nurses applied the 5As model on clients and intervened regarding their willingness to transform from lifestyles that encourage hazardous factors (Harris et al., 2013).

The late intervention group comprised of two community nursing services out of the total four. The groups were responsible for providing usual care to clients for approximately 18 months. After collecting all the data according to the 5As framework of lifestyle intervention, they continued to offer service level intermediation (Harris et al., 2013).

Out of the total 7874 clients screened for eligibility, only 2361 of them came out as potential eligible clients. Those eligible for the study were contacted via phone, 650 clients declined the offer of participating. Another 802 clients were not reachable prior to the first intervention, and 909 others verbally consented to the offer. The 909 contact details were passed to the data collection team, but finally, only 804 people were enlisted for the research (Harris et al., 2013).

The transformation in an individual’s lifestyle in regards to risk factors was evaluated in both EI and LI groups using multilevel models. Statistical tests that encompassed the chi square trial for categorical variables and the t-test for unceasing variables were conducted (Astroth & Chung, 2018). The researchers repeated three measures of SNAPW comparing them between clients, then for analysis of the physical activity, diet score, and weight, a multilevel linear regression was used. The nurses found the variance of the service insignificant to the study; hence no analysis was done (Harris et al., 2013).

From the total of 804 customers enlisted for the study, 425 were allocated to the EI group, and the other 379 in the LI group. Additionally, 49.3% of the total clients were female, 67.1% were over 60 years, and 53.1% three were retired from their respective duties. 61.6% of the clients rated their health above average in terms of excellence, and 12.7% reported recent chronic disease symptoms (Harris et al., 2013). Almost every individual registered at least one SNAPW risk, and 12.5% of the clients registered a minimum of four risks. Generally, 17.2% of clients were active smokers, 74% were obese, 78.5% took an insufficient amount of vegetable and fruit, and 36.9% were alcoholics. Out of all the individuals with the capability of engaging in physical activity, a half registered inadequate levels. The levels of all risk factors considered were almost similar in both the LI and EI groups. Only a few participants reported to possess SNAPW risks recalled being advised by profession three months prior to the beginning of the study (Harris et al., 2013).

The results showed that nursing services were capable of implementing lifestyle risk factor control as part of their typical practices. The strategy can be applied on a wider approach to cover a bigger population in the attempt to reduce chronic risk factors. The intervention framework was associated with increased provision of physical activity and dietary through advice from nurses. Through the qualitative interviews conducted, there was a feasible addition to clinical practices that clients found reliable. There was a non-significant impact noted on the client’s behaviors as a result of the intervention. The researcher states that interventions are not enough to achieve significant modification of lifestyle risk aspects in the participating groups of clients. The time of intervention and follow-up process was short; hence there was no time to confirm the majority of the client’s full recovery.

The research registered negative results compared to other studies associated with community nursing lifestyle interventions. Only a few clients received intervention for more than six months; additionally, the majority of clients experiencing more than four risk factors could not participate in physical practices due to infections (Harris et al., 2013). The researcher also explained that many clients belonged to a low socioeconomic class hence playing a part in registering negative results (Harris et al., 2013). The results imply signs of bias due to the verbal collection of data from participants, especially on the aspect of weight. The researchers found it feasible to adopt the quasi-experimental method since they could not randomize the practices (Astroth & Chung, 2018). Finally, the overall study might have been biased since only interested clients chose to volunteer (Harris et al., 2013).

The tests conducted were suitable for the study. Additionally, the tables showing the findings are clear and easy to read. The researcher’s tables are consistent with the summaries provided, which makes understanding the results easier. However, the author reports the findings objectively and does not put any insight into what happened and why they acquired the results portrayed. There is no statistical evidence or explanation of the reliability of the equipment used for the study. The aspect makes it difficult to trust the data collected from the study. The majority of limitations identified in the paper are associated with the clients; there are no cons registered from the community nurses’ practices. Such an issue proves that the researcher who conducted the study is biased. In the discussion section, the researchers explain that their results contrast the findings of other related studies conducted on the same topic. The given reason for the different results is the biases experienced during the conduction of the research. Also, there were no assumptions made about the data, and no two groups were compared to balance the study. Because of noted biases and limitations, there were no good outcomes registered from the research conducted.

The use of the interview style instruments to conduct the study caused a large margin of error seen in them throughout the paper. The results of the study should be reconstructed to attain a better explanation that is more objective instead of being subjective to the information that participants provided. In the medical community, research and evidence-based practices are essential aspects (Houser & Oman, 2010). However, it is not ideal to recommend this study for nursing practices; the topic of study is viable, but considering other studies covering the same topic seems a better option. In theory, the study shows great potential, but if some biases and limitations are limited. The author, however, provided room for more research studies regarding the topic.

References

Astroth, K. S., & Chung, S. Y. (2018). Focusing on the fundamentals: Reading quantitative research with a critical eye. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 45(3), 283-287. https://search.proquest.com/openview/c8f18c6b9ddcecdbe5c2be68a68739a4/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=45638

Harris, M. F., Chan, B. C., Laws, R. A., Williams, A. M., Davies, G. P., Jayasinghe, U. W., Fanaian, M., Orr, N., & Milat, A. (2013). The impact of a brief lifestyle intervention delivered by generalist community nurses (CN SNAP trial). BMC Public Health, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-375

Houser, J., & Oman, K. S. (2010). Evidence-based practice: An implementation guide for healthcare organizations. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DHoDgFV9w4YC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=reading,+using,+and+creating+evidence+-+Jones+%26+Bartlett+...&ots=1IgKIES-zP&sig=CkZsIIBjMakJVo-ef_Y8KGt9-7Q&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=reading%2C%20using%2C%20and%20creating%20evidence%20-%20Jones%20%26%20Bartlett%20...&f=false