Please type up a response to each discussion post separately. 1-2 paragraphs is okay for each one. Thank you.
Reply number one:
The study Effect of Postal-Mailed Nicotine Patches on Tobacco Cessation Among Smokers in Rural Canada: A Randomized Clinical Trial” is a quantitative research conducted to determine whether mailing nicotine patches to people in rural areas without healthcare can help them quit smoking (Cunningham et al., 2023). The study addressed the lack of resources in rural areas compared to urban areas. The trial examined the efficacy of nicotine patches in assisting people to quit smoking. The use of nicotine patches is based on evidence-based research that shows it increases the chances of quitting smoking.
Explanation of the research design
A randomized trial was carried out in rural areas of Canada with two groups: a control group and an experimental group. The experimental group was sent a 5-week supply of nicotine patches to help them quit smoking, while the control group received no information about nicotine. All participants agreed to take a baseline survey and a six-month follow-up survey (Cunningham et al., 2023).
Discussion of sample
The trial aimed to enroll participants from rural areas of Canada. Eighteen years or older who smoked more than ten cigarettes a day. Participants were recruited via phone or in person and paid $20 per survey. Randomly selected telephone numbers were used to identify potential participants. To be eligible for the trial, the person needed to use nicotine patches within a week of receiving them and have no health contraindications against using them. The experimental group received nicotine patches and instructions for their use, while the control group did not receive any patches (Cunningham et al., 2023).
Descriiption of data collection method
Data was gathered through phone conversations, verbal communication, and surveys. A baseline was collected at the beginning of the trial, and a follow-up was conducted six months later. The survey evaluated and assessed smoking cessation after six months (Cunningham et al., 2023).
Summary of findings
The purpose of the trial was to gather evidence for the effectiveness of mailed nicotine patches in promoting smoking cessation in rural areas with limited access to resources. In the experimental group, 28 participants were able to quit smoking, while in the control group, 9 participants quit tobacco (Cunningham et al., 2023). The complete result was that 423 participants were part of the follow-up. The findings from the randomized trial suggest that the experimental group achieved smoking cessation for a 30-day point prevalence more than the control group (Cunningham et al., 2023). Evidence-based research shows that the efficacy of mailed nicotine patches can promote smoking cessation in rural locations where healthcare access is limited.
Strength of the study
This study’s most significant advantage is its understanding of the necessity for education and resources to enhance healthcare in rural areas. The research conducted in this study revealed how using evidence-based decision-making and sound judgment can help improve patient health outcomes for smoking cessation.
Limitations of the study
The study’s reliability could have been increased with more participants, as it would allow for a more quantitative comparison with a larger group.
Recommendations regarding potential applications for future practice that are insightful and appropriate
Patient education and assessment are crucial aspects of nursing practice. When a patient is non-compliant with a treatment plan and requires a nicotine patch for smoking cessation, access to evidence-based research on smoking cessation methods is essential. Contact a nicotine patch sales representative to determine if the patient is eligible for a program that supplies nicotine patches. Additionally, the patient should be referred to a local state cessation program that can provide this service.
Reply number 2:
Descriiption of the purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to find an article to discuss the effectiveness of using soap and water compared to alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) to help reduce the number of pathogens on healthcare workers hands. I have chosen the above study to help add to my research for my PICOT question to help determine if it will demonstrate the effectiveness of using both or one over the other to prevent hospital acquired infections (HAI). My PICOT question is: In hospital acquired infections/ diseases in the geriatric population between the ages of 65 to 85 years of age, what are the effects of washing with soap and water for 40-60 seconds in comparison to using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer for 20-30 seconds over 30 days?
Explanation of research design
While reviewing the article, the researchers used a quantitative analysis to determine the outcome. This type of research has many elements in common to help demonstrate the quality of the results. The study used a small sample population to examine the effectiveness that soap and water has on removing pathogens compared to using an ABHS.
Discussion of sample
The study consisted of three groups of thirty students. The participants hands were contaminated by touching common area surfaces such as doorknobs followed by group A using 3mls of soap and water and washed their hands for 40-60 seconds, group B cleaned their hands for 20-30 seconds with ABHS and the last group C used both soap and water and ABHS. cleaning for 46-60 seconds, group B used ABHS for 40-60 seconds and group C used both methods after contaminating their hands.
Descriiption of data collection methods
This study is a single blinded randomized controlled trial that was executed in a college setting with ninety dental college students. These students were randomly chosen and split into three separate groups of thirty to perform the study for comparison (Khairnar et al., 2022). Each student hand was swabbed after contamination and tested for analysis.
Summary of findings
The study found no difference in the three hand disinfecting methods amongst the groups. The reduction of bacteria shown on all three groups hands after disinfecting them demonstrated no significant differences at all (Khairnar et al., 2022). The study went on to explain however, that using the hand washing, and hand sanitizer combination showed to be slightly more effective than using the other two individual methods alone (Khairnar et al., 2022).
Strengths of the study
The strength of this study was strong because it demonstrated the effectiveness of using soap and water alone, ABHS alone, and compared those two with the effectiveness of using both together. The results were pretty much all the same and has helped reassure that using an ABHS is an effective cleaning method for removing pathogens from the hands in between patient care to prevent or reduce the chances of hospital acquired infections (HAIs) (Khairnar et al., 2022).
Limitations of the study
I do not believe there were any limitations to this study. Three groups were swabbed for pathogens and analyzed after three hand washing techniques and methods using the Shapiro- Wilk test, descriiptive statistics like a median as well as the interquartile area of microbial count, were evaluated (Khairnar et al., 2022).
Recommendations regarding potential application for future practice that are insightful and appropriate.
My recommendation is to use either soap and water, a hospital approved ABHS, or a combination of both to help prevent or reduce the spread of pathogens from one patient to another. All three methods have shown to be effective if used over 20 to 60 seconds in between patient care.
