The selected exam reading for this critique is Cribs for Kids: Risk and Reduction of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Accidental Suffocation. The study research has been conducted by Eileen M. Carlins and Kathryn S.Collins. The study paper is in the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in Pennsylvania. The study explores the campaign efforts under ‘The Cribs for Kids’ and the effectiveness. Other factors such as progress and effect of the disease campaign have also been focused on. The critique paper within will seek to interrogate the research design and unravel what steps have been carried out well and correctly. The analysis approach will also decide on whether this research design and how well it was used. By the end, suitable recommendations on alternative methods and procedures will be given on the same (Green and South 2006). The title used ‘Cribs for Kids: Risk and Reduction of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Accidental Suffocation’ can be said to have sufficiently covered the scope of the research. A reader with no clue or familiarity with the issue being discussed gets a clear picture of the relation of the bed campaign insinuated and the medical syndrome and the condition’s nature. Eileen M. Carlins and Kathryn S.Collins are two credible intellectuals and researchers with a real credibility. The writer uses an approved reporting statistical and data methods in giving the data and information evaluation on the SIDS condition. Phone calls to potential respondents were made and one on one interview used to question the respondent. A questionnaire with 18 questions was used. The questionnaire was a useful statistical data collection method as it evaluated and documented the respondents’ knowledge on the SIDS risk management. The respondents’ information retention, understanding and appreciation of the dangers which exposed babies to SIDS. Smoking near a child, the position of resting the baby on bed among others was cited as possible SIDS causes. The response given helped evaluate program satisfaction and gather recommendations for improvements (Creswell and Creswell 2007).
Logic modeling has been successfully employed as a strategy factor in identifying useful program components such as the SID campaign program and Cribs for Kids beneficiary campaign in Allegheny County Pennsylvania and resulting outcomes. Such outcomes were well documented by the two authors. The respondents were documented to have adopted changes by behavioral observation. The important and imperative research contextual factors such as the method of selecting the respondents were also well documented. Carlins and Collins admitted the selection method might have presented bias problems if the questions of the scripted survey script were not strictly followed. The research did well in usage of the methods of selecting and usage of study co affecting SIDS and cribs for kid’s program operations. The final behavioral changes and beneficial outcomes were also entirely and comprehensively recorded from behavioral observations. ‘SIDS in the United States’ delves into the literature review of the paper. It concerns with the statistical information on the prevalence of SIDS and the yearly deaths. Various have been appropriately cited within for the quoted definition of the SIDS syndrome. The third part ‘Bed Sharing and Accidental suffocation’ gives the possible causes and documented causes of the SIDS occurrence. The information provided is accurate and reliable. The increment of infant deaths by infants from sharing beds with smoking parents is verifiable from an independent source in the research quoted inside (Stern 2005).
The literature review ‘Creation of Cribs for Kids Campaign’ focuses on systematic data for the formative evaluation of the SIDS campaign program. The part accurately documents the campaign formation and progress in Allegheny County in Penny Sylvia. Definite dates such as August 1998 the launching date for the cited campaign have been used for more factual statistical reporting. Specific details of the SIDS campaign have been intimately provided. The two authors describe how full cribs size, well-made custom firm mattresses, and civic education was provided to the families in the low-income strata in the county of Allegheny. Carlins and Collins document 500 infant mattresses and beds distributed. The channels which were used to raise the funds for “Cribs for Kids Campaign’ are well documented as NGO grants, organized charity community walks and athletics as well as local assistance from Rotary Clubs from the Allegheny County Office of the District Attorney (Creswell and Creswell 2007).
An average reader or professional person reading the paper will relate well with the given paper as it gives verifiable data which correspond with background checks from independent sources. The two sections also give the methodology summation of research methods used. The follow up has been done well and orderly reporting a chronological follow-up of the aftermath of the S.I.D.S and Kids for Cribs. The methodology gives the methods used as the telephone as potential participates were called and asked for their approval to take part in the SIDS study. Verbal consent is documented as having been given, and letters were also sent for consent communication. He results observations such as comparative analysis of beneficiary families of the Cribs for Kids and the infant death public records are provided subjectively. The assumptions of the untraceable beneficiaries being safe have been explicitly stated distinctly not to confuse with the official data and files (Salkind 2010).
A subjective report is given with no false statements in favor of the campaign. For instance, Carlins and Collins state categorically that after the civic education on the teaching materials, over half of the respondents failed to explain what SIDS was. Such reporting that considers the negative results and shortcomings of the study reflects professional, honest and authentic research that can be recommended. Furthermore, the authors go ahead at the end of the evaluation section to give the limitations of the study. The two researchers cite one challenge as lack of a control group for their study. The highlight of this issue is very vital to the readers and intended audience of the research (Salkind, 2010). The recommendation section ‘Policy and program Development’ is well designed methodologically. Helpful and clear recommendations have been provided by the pair on how to mitigate future cases of SIDS risk. The suggestion of social workers as the best candidate for the civic education of the masses on the SIDS risks concept is very apt. The recommendation offer alternatives to the cribs advocated. The final part gives a list of all sources cited in this research directly or indirectly. Primary and secondary sources mainly books, journals, and research publications are comprehensively and thoroughly referenced. Authors’ names, publishers, cities, years of publication and other pertinent details are provided for. The citations and references are vital in that they give credit to the origin owners of the works used. It also helps give the research credibility as it avoids any claims of intellectual property.
The research lacked a control group that was not offered the infant beds .The project's evaluation assessment in the SIDS and Cribs for Kids programs have explored the data and information needs of concerned parties, project managers and the respondent stakeholders the plausible believability and feedback option expenses. The possible use of other useful and productive alternatives evaluation such as use of a control group parallel to the experimental group which received the SIDS materials such as beds. The authors highlighted the evaluation findings in qualitative research which would have improved the campaign success and performance findings. The research design also employed quite well a comprehensive Performance monitoring system. The evaluation revealed parents and guardians welfare and care practices improved and were more life improving on the children in preventing the SID syndrome. The results were from randomized experiments as well as comparison group design of before and after the two campaigns (Creswell and Creswell 2007).
References
Creswell, J., & Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Green, J., & South, J. (2006). Evaluation. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Salkind, N. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Stern, E. (2005). Evaluation research methods. London: SAGE.
