"Cot-Nursing versus Incubator Care for Preterm Infants" is a wonderful example of a paper on child development. In this research, Gray and Flenady (2011) carried out a study to establish the benefits of using cot-nursing care instead of using incubator care for handling preterm infants. This research is relevant because it is aimed to create an effective way in which mothers can access their babies while under preterm care. This study is also important because it aims to compare an incubator and the cot-nursing and identify which is prominent to be used.
Currently, most of the hospital uses incubators, and this study aimed to identify if the cot-nursing can be used to replace the incubators. In the current world, this research will help in improving the care for preterm infants. The study is also aimed at making sure that preterm infants get the necessary care. There is also a problem in the growth of the preterm infant, and this research is aimed at establishing an efficient way to ensure that the babies grow effectively. Mothers cannot access their children in an incubator, but they view them while inside and this research establishes means in which mothers can access their children while in a cot-nursing rather than an incubator. Level of Evidence of the Studies Critique The evidence used by the researcher to make a conclusion is not substantial for nursing research.
The researcher collected data from different database sources concerning the use of cot-nursing and incubator. The evidence was collected from materials in the Oxford Database of Prenatal, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBRACE among others. Those databases are not enough to carry out a nursing practical research.
The researchers should have also gathered material from peer-review articles and journals. The materials reviewed by the research were from 2009, and the research was published in 2011. The research should have also used the current materials of 2010. Some of the materials also quoted in the research as the sources are too old, and they can not be reliable sources for practical nursing research. Examples of the old literature used include Armitage 1994, Warr1989, Bruck 1968, and Tunnell 1986. In the collection of data, the researchers collected data from five groups of nursing care that involved 247 infants.
The five studies involved were used to compare cot-nursing care and incubator care. This is significantly a little number to collect data and state the conclusion of the finding. The data was collected from a particular region, and this can not be used to make a conclusion for the necessary nursing care because infant care can vary with regions. The researcher should have collected data from different parts of the world because the type of care can vary depending on climate, genetic and environmental changes. The evidence collected is determined to compare cot-nursing care and incubator care.
Effective evidence that can lead to a conclusion should also analyze the effectiveness of nurses providing the care. The evidence should also include the cooperation and willingness of mothers to use incubator or cot nursing care. Evidence concerning the incubator and cot-nursing facilitators was not carried out. The facilitators include things like electricity for heating or the mattress used in case of cot-nursing care. The researcher should have also gathered evidence concerning the nurse’ s ability to deliver and mothers' preferences.
The evidence concerning the facilities is also more important in this research because the incubator can be infective due to lack of sufficient heating facilities. In the research also no trials were done to compare the newborn care in cots with more warmth provided by the inclusion of extra beddings and clothing of heating elements under the mattress. The research also identified the heated water-filled mattress as a technically simple and cheap method that can replace the incubator care since it is cost-effective.
On the other hand, no studies were carried out to make a comparison between the cot-nursing and incubator costs. There was no evidence to claim that the cot-nursing is cheap than the incubator and the research could not have brought about the claim before carrying out a study to compare the two. Clarity Critique The research has quality issues in relation to clarity. In order to understand the things discussed in the research, an individual should carry more research. Some of the difficult words are not defined before use.
The research assumed that the readers are conversant with the word. For example, the use of an infant is not defined. The researcher also defined some words like cot-nursing and incubator but did not include a reference. To be clearer, the researcher should have included a reference to the definition in order to show the reader, the scholar who defines it. Data should be presented by the use of graphs for clarity. In order to be more clear and understandable in the findings, the author should have used at least graphs and tables to discuss the results.
It is difficult for one to understand the results of the research since all the information is presented in paragraphs. The methodology is also not clear. The author explained things like the criteria used to consider studies for the review and search methods for the study's identification. The researcher could have mentioned the design of the study whether qualitative or quantitative. The author also did not mention the methods used to collect data. It could be clearer if the author did mention the methods to use in collecting and present data like the questionnaire, interview, and case studies. Overall Findings From the findings, there was no evidence of cot-nursing versus the incubator effects on weight gain.
During the first week, the cot-nursing developed poor weight gain as compared to the incubator nursery care. The weight developed in cot nursing was only 6 g/kg in a day. This showed that cot nursing is not effective in ensuring weight gain for the infant. In respect to mean body temperature analysis, the results showed no effect on both cot nursing and incubator care.
The infants did not experience cold stress while in a cot-nursing nor in an incubator. This showed that both cares are reliable for temperature management. In one trial, the hyperthermia episodes were evidenced in cot nursing. The hyperthermia episodes occurred as a result of setting the temperature of the mattress in the cot nursing high by the nurses. With respect to breastfeeding at hospital discharge, perception of mothers on infant condition, oxygen consumption, nosocomial sepsis’ s episodes, death, maternal anxiety, and stress before discharge from the hospital did not show any effect on both incubator and cot-nursing care. Conclusion Critique The author’ s conclusion is also questionable because it talks about the findings only instead of talking about the entire research (methodology, data collection, results, discussion, and literature review).
The conclusion indicates that limited data were available for the cot nursing and incubator outcomes, but it was concluded that the cot-nursing is cost-effective and more effective than the incubator. The author goes ahead and concludes that cot nursing is not appropriate in a space heated room. The statement made is biased because there is no evidence in the body paragraphs.
There was no trail made to access the applicability of the cot-nursing in the space heated room. The author did not explain the reason for making this conclusion and how he identified the most applicable preterm infant care.
ReferencesFlenady V. and Gray P. H. (2011). Cot-Nursing versus Incubator Care for Preterm Infants. Accessed August 10, 2011, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003062.pub2/full#CD003062-sec1-0005