Article Review and Critique

Article Review and Critique
Name
Institution
Date
Article Review and Critique
Physical activity has been said to be very useful for young children but no one seems to pay attention to the number of inactive infants is relatively high. From the research, the author explains the importance of pediatric care since it encourages implementation of early childhood screening mostly as organizations. The research also explains that pediatricians are usually in the best position to gain the children’s and guardians’ trusts which is essential in explaining the parent’s behavior on the child’s welfare. According to Godoy and Carter (2013), the primary care roles increases especially when they provide high-risk families that are not connected to social service programs before their kid are enrolled in school. The main focus of the author was developmental and behavioral health screening and how to have systems that remain active even after the funding from the grant. The qualitative interviews were conducted to get the complete picture and therefore show the importance of the matter. Through the research study, some themes emerged and were all covered in the results part. The themes are of great help the researcher since they get the chance to have the hypothesis through the results of the interviews. For example, the researcher explains that the construct was applicable but not implemented the additional screening code saved the contrasts. It is also important to note that there were themes that were not portrayed in the study.

These themes are discussed in the ‘barriers and facilitators for screen implementation.’
The research is a qualitative study and as such is demanded a certain level of subjectivity. The researcher throughout the paper portrays an effort to remain subjective, but they end up taking a side since they align the issues that lead to the problems for childcare screening implementation. According to the researcher, the staff is among the people responsible for the barriers. This is because they are the ones trusted to act as mediums for the process, but they end up falling short of expectations. Stakeholders also shared their concerns by indicating that another barrier is the fact that parents have to wait for a long time before they can secure the first visit to the pediatrician. Another issue is when the screens take a long time and when the results are in the providers are given the first opportunity (Meyers, Durlak, & Wandersman, 2012). However, this should not be the case since the priority should be the family of the patient. The researcher intended to have the experience of hearing the barriers and having an understanding of why they exist in the first place. However, the research mainly learns on the barriers that exist, but there is little knowledge on the why of the question. Most of the study was through interviews since it is the best way to get the honest answers. The researcher in their findings added information that will become permanent and thus was unstructured. It is safe to say that the study took place in a calm and relaxing environment of the participant. There did not exist a report that indicates the extensive planning of the interview questions.
Problem
The aim of the paper is stated in the introduction, abstract as well as the results section. The researcher explains that the study intended to “understand the dynamic barriers and facilitators of implementation at various stages” (Weitzman and Wegner 2015). From the abstract, the study was supposed to rely on four years interviews that had to be transcribed and synthesized using that best qualitative method to meet the goals of the study. By doing this, the research was indirectly exploring the issues that have been there with the screening problems, and no one has come up with a permanent solution. Even though the some of the qualitative studies were not generalized, it should be noted that the findings from the reach should be transferable to other situations. This means that even though screening implementation cannot be identical, the solutions to the problem should be compared to other groups experiencing the same issues. A better understanding is that it is not possible for a person to experience the same hardships as the next person, but there should be consulting with people who have gone through the same issues.
Question
The research is based on the two research questions that the examiner wanted to answer. These research questions are (a) what barriers and facilitators do stakeholders describe related to the implementation of early childhood developmental and behavioral health screening in pediatric primary care clinics? (b) In what ways do stakeholders perspectives of barriers and facilitators change across different stages of implementation? It is crucial to note that the research was not a hypothesis even though the questions can be viewed as a hypothesis. The study simply begins with asking questions to make it easier to steer the study in the direction that they find will offer the best perspective on the subject matter. Moreover, the case study uses an implementation science that that is used in the identification of the barriers and facilitators of early childhood screening integration within pediatric primary care clinics (Baser et al. 2005). Consequently, the subjectivity of the researcher has allowed them to conduct the study ‘integrating early childhood screening in pediatrics: A longitudinal qualitative study of barriers and facilitators’
Literature
For a qualitative study, it is crucial to carry out a literature review to give backbone to the survey and give it context. In the current research, the author uses relevant literature to explain the importance of carrying out the research which goes a long way to give merit to the study. An example is an introduction where Moullin, Sabater-Hernández, Fernandez-Llimos, & Benrimoj, (2015) posit the science conceptual frameworks differ in their description of the process of implementation. They continue to explain implementation comes in different stages that became recursive after some time. This literature goes a long way in helping the researcher support the opinions of the study even though it does not give a clear background.
Theory
The theory of the study is derived from the data collected from interviews. The approach is also concluded by the researcher answering the research questions in the survey. The authors used in the study provide a background on the topic which makes it easier to support the observation and analysis. Moreover, the similarities in the literature used in the study play a big part in giving academics a reason to understand the importance of the study, therefore, taking it seriously. Additionally, in answering the research questions, a theory is formed on the significance of the study as well as gives room for scholars and academics to understand the reasons behind the article.
Procedures
Quality improvement and program evaluation were crucial in a substantial part of ‘Project LAUNCH. Among the program evaluations were qualitative interviews that were supposed to help gain helpful information on the topic. The goal of this approach was to meet two goals which were a) to guide implementation efforts via formative feedback and (b) to inform future statewide efforts aimed at developing sustainable screening delivery models. The study further explains that the interviews were later transcribed for further studies. It is important to note that despite the use of the evaluation programs, external forces were not used and therefore staff had multiple tasks. This is risky since the team could become tired or fatigued and therefore not give the evaluation all their attention. The study did not give a reason as to why they did not use external forces, and they lacked to provide the interview question that was asked.
Analysis
The researcher has done a great job in making the data collection clear and concise, and the themes for the research appear all through the study. The study does not forge information but uses all the literature even though it does not agree with which side they take on the study. The study discusses in details the barriers and facilitators to screening implementation according to the findings and discussion throughout the study. An example is when Hsieh & Shannon, (2005) explains that the screening implementation used a priori coding scheme that gave benefits as a theory that was grounded but thought bias in the final results. The researcher can relate to the participants of the study despite their different perspective which is important in ensuring the study is not biased and gives consideration to all ideas.
Validity
The author proves the validity of the mode of collecting data used; interviews. They can give their credibility in that the researcher can stay focused on the goals of the study without deviating to give their preference on the study. The use of other authors to support the finding and observation also goes a long way in boosting the credibility of the researcher. This is because if some scholars and academics have written about aspects of the research, then the current study is valid
Conclusion
It is safe to conclude that the study has managed to answer the research question and stay focused on the goal until the end. The question was not supposed to be approached from a positive or negative perspective but instead give an understanding of the topic; ‘Integrating early childhood screening in pediatrics: A longitudinal qualitative study of barriers and facilitators’. Additionally, the study revealed that another could affect the result since there were limitations that happened during the current research. For example, the use of staff and not external forces for the interviews may have affected the outcome of the results since the participant might not have been completely honest. I found that the conclusions of the study may be vague and unclear due to the participants used. The study may have answered the question, but I see that the readers were not satisfied with the research and would have preferred a different approach to data collection. All in all, the study would have had a better result if the researcher had more time to come up with a suitable way to explain the questions used during the interview. This would have given readers a chance to feel like they are part of the study, therefore, giving it more attention.
References
Baser, M. E., Kuramoto, L., Woods, R., Joe, H., Friedman, J. M., Wallace, A. J., … & Papi, L. (2005). The location of constitutional neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) splice site mutations are associated with the severity of NF2. Journal of medical genetics, 42(7), 540-546.
Godoy, L., & Carter, A. S. (2013). Identifying and addressing mental health risks and problems in primary care pediatric settings: A model to promote developmental and cultural competence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83(1), 73-88.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American journal of community psychology, 50(3-4), 462-480.Moullin, J. C., Sabater-Hernández, D., Fernandez-Llimos, F., & Benrimoj, S. I. (2015). A systematic review of implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare and resulting generic implementation framework. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13(1), 16.Weitzman, C., & Wegner, L. (2015). Promoting optimal development: screening for behavioral and emotional problems. Pediatrics, peds-2014.