The problem statement that Tullmann et al. (2007) deal with in this article is clearly specified in the abstract. The article clearly states that elderly persons with severe coronary infarction have a longer pretreatment delay time than junior adults. Although the diagnosis for patients with signs of AMI should start at least less than two hours from the onset of the signs, about one out of four AMI adult casualties wait for over five hours between the onset of AMI signs and admittance for diagnosis.
Significance of the Research
The research that the authors present is significant in many ways, but mainly, it has the potential of improving timely access of AMI victims to treatment. The authors deviated from previous researchers as regards the reasons for the delay by patients with myocardial infarction; previous researchers stated the reasons as being lack of community knowledge and awareness of the signs of AMI and the treatment options available. Instead, the authors scrutinized the cognitive, emotional, and societal issues concerned with the delay, and if the research outcomes can be implemented they can successfully tackle the problem of adult delay in treatment (Tullman et al., 2007). Additional significance is well established in the article as the authors emphasize the need to launch personalized education and counseling in clinics and health centers for elderly adults who are vulnerable to AMI attacks. The information gathered can be extended to nursing institutions and medical authorities to help enhance access to treatment for elderly adults with AMI symptoms. Reduced Delay in Older Adults Assignment
Adequacy of the Methods Used
The authors have employed a random sampling and testing approach in their research to collect both numerical and qualitative information about the possible reasons for the pretreatment delay of elderly adults with AMI signs. Their sample comprised of two groups of 115 adults aged 65 years and above and who had a self-described knowledge of heart disease. The authors also applied Leventhal’s self regulative model of disease behavior to discover probable centers of attention in the course of delay and repeated testing after three months. Based on the results of the article, the methods used seem to be adequate. The sample size, data collection techniques, and variables used by the authors are adequate as they gather qualitative information that satisfactorily supports the findings of the research.
Validity of Research Outcomes
The research is well laid out, informative, and employs minimal health terminologies. The analysis of implications and results is smart and intuitive since it represents the 115 adults effectively. The inclusion of the credentials and ranks that the researchers hold further affirms the validity of the research results. The research has also received approval of the institutional review boards, and it seems that ethical deliberations have been applied to ensure that the rights of individuals are safeguarded. The chief ethical principles include independence, non-mischief, beneficence, and justice and have been adhered to during the research. Voluntary consent of each participant was received, and participants were granted the authority to leave the research at any time (Tullman et al., 2007). Therefore, the authors’ methods did prove effective, and the research findings were convincing.
Tullmann, D. F., Haugh, K. H., Dracup, K. A., & Bourguignon, C. (2007). A randomized controlled trial to reduce delay in older adults seeking help for symptoms of acute myocardial infarction. Research in nursing & health, 30(5), 485-497.