Evidence and research nursing BSN

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Code and Title

Professor’s Name

Assignment Due Date

Article 1: Labor Induction Through Cervical Ripening: A Comparison of Balloon Catheters and Prostaglandin Medications  

Problem Identified

The article was purposed to examine labor induction via cervical ripening by comparing prostaglandin medications and balloon catheters. After the study, the identified problem was that most women are likely to undergo labor induction. The study states that labor induction is a common practice for women giving birth. Additionally, the article states that 23% of the women in 2014 underwent labor induction while giving birth. It is worth noting that the author clarifies that constant debates that have been held to manage cervical ripening have not yielded much. The identified problems are clearly defined.

Picot Question

The PICOT question’s essence is to identify the problem of the patient, interventions necessary for dealing with the patient, an interactive comparison between the patients, a detailed presentation of the outcome, and the specifications of time in which the interventions are efficient. The problem identified was the occurrence of labor while giving birth. The intervention used for the study was the use of cervical ripening to enhance the process’s success. The study aims to compare the effectiveness of prostaglandins and balloon catheters in enhancing cervical ripening. In women with an intrauterine pregnancy (P), how does the use of a balloon catheter (I) compared to prostaglandin (C) medications affect cervical ripening (O) for labor induction (T)?

Like

I like the author’s unbiased comparison between the two methods and harmonizing ideas to make an effective conclusion of the two methods. I am moved by the author’s decision to use a good sample size to improve the study’s effectiveness and reliability. I believe that the research study was also to meet the intended questions efficiently. The author convinces me that using these methods could lower the risk of undergoing cesarean delivery. The author was effective in understanding that both the use of prostaglandins and the balloon catheters were effective methods for labor induction purposes. I like how the author states individual benefits attached to the use of each of the two methods. Lastly, I like the strategies used by the author in search of the relevant materials. I was impressed by the fact that the author used credible libraries such as BioMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Medline to provide detailed research.

Evaluation of Literature

The literature paper uses credible and reliable peer-reviewed and scholarly articles. The author has built a firm foundation for the study by using libraries such as BioMed and Medline to acquire the necessary information. The sources were used to evaluate the effects of balloon catheters and prostaglandin medications in the management of cervical ripening to induce labor. The Intervention strategy was analyzed with three sources, while two sources were used to analyze the comparison strategy. The author examined two sides of the research problem (advantages and disadvantages) of the comparison and the intervention strategies. The author successfully presented the research study without taking sides, and therefore, the information was unbiased.

Outcome Change and Barriers

The author has identified an effective model that could be used to enhance change. According to the author, the effective implementation of new procedures, innovation, and clinical guidelines could enhance its positive change. This is achievable by engaging the appropriate stakeholders, information sharing with those involved in the patient’s care plan, and adequate administrative support. Additionally, the author also examines some of the barriers which could hinder change. Some of the identified barriers are lack of knowledge and time on the implementation of the changes.

Outcome Improvement

Most of the information in this article was presented logically and clearly, although some areas need improvements. The paper has a smooth flow from one section to another as the author uses appropriate transitions. The author’s use of subheadings has greatly helped in following thoughts and the relationship among various sections of the paper. I did not see the author’s mind on the subject of the study on the background. They should have included his opinion regarding the intervention and the identified problem before the entire research.

In conclusion and summary, I feel convinced that the author has done enough to meet the study’s purpose and answer the PICOT question. The information presented in the article is excellent and can be used for further research studies.