-
- QUESTION
As the reviewer: When you peer review another’s work, you will critically evaluate and suggest improvements. You will likely read the abstract once or twice before delving in with comments and first impressions. Using the checklist below, identify strengths and areas for improvement, being sure to address each critical element in your review.
Peer Review Checklist:
ï‚· Aims and objectives: Is the purpose clearly stated? ï‚· Background: Does the author offer background on the subject? ï‚· Methods: Are the methods clearly stated? What type of method did the author use? ï‚· Results: Are the results valid and reliable? ï‚· Conclusions: Are the conclusions clearly stated and are they informed by the results? ï‚· Relevance to clinical practice: Does the author state the relevancy to clinical practice? ï‚· Articulation of response (e.g., citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, organization)
Peer Review Checklist:
ï‚· Aims and objectives: Is the purpose clearly stated? ï‚· Background: Does the author offer background on the subject? ï‚· Methods: Are the methods clearly stated? What type of method did the author use? ï‚· Results: Are the results valid and reliable? ï‚· Conclusions: Are the conclusions clearly stated and are they informed by the results? ï‚· Relevance to clinical practice: Does the author state the relevancy to clinical practice? ï‚· Articulation of response (e.g., citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, organization)
please 2-3 paragraphs ONLY
ABSTRACT
Objective: To decrease the potential for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome infants to require opioid replacement therapy during the first three to five days of life by incorporating continuous maternal presence and/or a rooming-in method of care.
As the reviewer: When you peer review another’s work, you will critically evaluate and suggest improvements. You will likely read the abstract once or twice before delving in with comments and first impressions. Using the checklist below, identify strengths and areas for improvement, being sure to address each critical element in your review.Background: Opiate administration is the current standard of therapy for NAS infants with moderate to severe symptoms of withdrawal. The current course of therapy requires the mother-infant dyad to be separated. The post-natal opiate administration paired with the lack of maternal presence may cause lasting developmental consequences. Non-pharmacological interventions such as skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, increased affection and rooming-in are therapies that may decrease the need for pharmacological therapy.
Methods: CINHL-EBSCO and Nursing Journals on OVID were searched for studies related to Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome with advanced search of rooming-in, full text, evidence-based healthcare and years 2015-2018. A total of 31 articles were viewed and 7 were included in this review.
Results:
When caring for the substance exposed newborn, whether using a rooming-in model, or assuring that maternal presence is available as often as possible, it is important to view the mother-infant dyad as a whole. The infant has a decreased chance of developing an increase in signs and symptoms of withdrawal when the infant is able to be cared for by the mother.
Conclusions:
Rooming-in care and continuous maternal presence should be the standard for caring for the NAS infant.
| Subject | Nursing | Pages | 2 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
Critical Peer Review
The effectiveness of an abstract is based on how various sections are articulated and the provision of sufficient details regarding the topic. The objective of the article is clearly stated as to reduce potential for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome infants to require opioid replacement therapy during the first three to five days of life by incorporating the maternal presence and rooming-in care method. Notably, the intervention, outcome, and time frame are all provided, a key strength of the article. The author provides sufficient background on the topic including opiate administration being a current effective standard for NAS infants. Sufficient details are provided and related to the purpose of the study. The author mentions the sources of the journals which include CINHL-EBSCO on OVID and some of the inclusion-exclusion aspects. However, the exact methodology of the study has not been stated. The reliability and validity of the study are also not clearly reflected as no specific reference to the reviewed studies is provided. The conclusion is clearly stated as the summary of the entire review, although the relevance to clinical practice is not mentioned. The author articulates the response with regards to spelling, syntax, and organization although citations are not provided.
The main strengths of the abstract include comprehensive background and objective while the weaknesses are not stating the methodology, lack of relevance to clinical practice, and insufficient results. The author only mentions that the methodology was a review but fails to acknowledge the exact form of review such as systematic. In addition, the types of journals are not stated such as randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews. The results are shallow and cannot comprehensively be used to inform the conclusion. Improvement areas are stating the exact methodology used such as systematic review or literature review of the journals, mentioning the types of sources used for the evaluation, providing sufficient results, and briefly mentioning the relevance of the study to clinical practice. Moreover, it is essential to acknowledge the key points from the review in the conclusion.