Critique of a Mixed Method Article

Introduction

This article explored patients perceptions concerning the barriers to good diabetic control. In the introduction pat of the article, the researcher clearly mentioned the existence of impediment issues pertaining to implementation of the good diabetic control strategies. The rationale and purpose have also been clearly stated, but it could have been more helpful if the significance of the study were mentioned. According to Van Manen (2016), mentioning the purpose of the study, objectives and significance at the beginning is considered is an excellent way of exposing the readers to the expected contents. The statement of the problem was never clearly written. It could have been made more pronounced by citing for more information and emphasizing of the barriers to the implementation process.

Following the introduction, the researcher utilized mixed methods of study to establish the variables from the previous publications while linking them to the present study. Mixed methods are considered as the most credible methods of ensuring credibility in a research because finding from one study can be compared to result from other scholars (Mertens 2014).  This is of great help to readers in determining credible basis of the research. By exploring the constructs of the study, it can be clearly observed that theoretical framework was involved and the participants were appropriately sorted. Nonetheless, information regarding ethical considerations of the respondents involved in this research is missing. Without proper definition of ethical framework, it is not clear as to whether the participants’ right were violated.  The researcher has demonstrated the use of the questionnaires and periodic reports obtained from the hospital databases. While the credibility of the questionnaires were clearly presented, method of determining the validly of the periodic reports are completely oblique. As motioned by Otike (2016), access to print or electronic materials requires some permission from the owner, but this is an explanation that is lacking in this article.

Conclusion

The results indicated that Self-reported medication adherence was good with 83% (98/118) of responders recording a higher point of scale.  However, there were flaws in the results because it could not be generalized to a larger scale.  Finally, the conclusion drawn by the researcher offers a warrant of support to this study and one could easily interpret the findings of the researcher as positive. Therefore, this article contributes to the knowledge of demonstrating that the implementation of good management practices for diabetes is hampered by some barriers.