1. Introduction
Healthcare sector has undergone significant evolution over the past few decades under the strong impact of technological and other developments specific to the sector. Many new types of treatments have been introduced, and the issues that have long been un-addressed received much attention by the experts. As in the case of any other field, healthcare also heavily relies on research in order to identify the core needs relevant to the field to lead to the formulation of appropriate response strategies (ed. Manley, McCormack, & Wilson, 2013; Thies & Travers, 2006).
Including all other areas, growing importance and impacts of health literacy have also been a matter of interest for scholars and critics as well as for practitioners (Hernandez, Pleasant, Institute of Medicine (U.S.), & Institute of Medicine (U.S.)). Current paper aims to investigate into three significant efforts made in this context in the shape of research-based reports. The researcher has selected three reports dealing with health literacy, and its importance in different dimensions. A separate section is specified for the appraisal of each report. Keeping in view the learning outcomes, the focus will be divided between the critical analysis of the key findings relevant to mental literacy and different tools, techniques, and methods utilised by the researchers to conduct their studies.
2. Statement of the Research Question
The researcher aims to investigate into the research methods used in the selected reports. Therefore, the research question devised by the researcher (the writer of this paper) will be as follows:
“What are the common practices with regard to research methods for the studies dealing with healthcare literacy?”
Hence, the researcher by digging into the selected pieces from the literature will try to identify the areas wherein health knowledge, and awareness can contribute to patient care, public level health measures, and in any other area.
3. Brief Description of the Reports to be Appraised
As already mentioned, the researcher has selected three reports to analyse and appraise critically. These three papers are as follows:
3.1. First Paper
First paper selected for the underlying research is titled as “Health literacy: a necessity for increasing participation in health care” written by Protheroe, Nutbeam, & Rowlands (2009). The study is focused on the emphasis of the UK government on increasing patients’ participation in health education programs and its benefits. Furthermore, it also aims to investigate into the current government policy towards achieving the desired level of patient participation in these programs.
3.2. Second Paper
Second paper to be appraised is titled as “Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models” authored by Sørensen et al. (2012). The authors of this paper strive to dig deep into the definitions of health literacy and different models utilised to implement improvement plans in this regard. Basing on conceptual insight gained from their study, they intend to establish their own integrated definition of this discipline along with the formulation of an integrated implementation model.
3.3. Third Research Paper
Third research paper aimed to be covered by the researcher is taken from “The British Journal of Psychiatry”. “Public knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders” written by Jorm (2000), deals specifically with the benefits of mental health awareness. The author is of the view that this area of health literacy (mental health literacy) is yet to be explored though there are a plethora of studies in the literature to give coverage to physical health knowledge.
4. Critique of First Paper
In this section, the researcher will appraise the paper “Health literacy: a necessity for increasing participation in health care”. Complete analysis with regard to different methods used and key findings of the authors are provided as follows:
4.1. The Research Process
It is a smart research paper dealing with the core issues relating to health literacy and measures to overcome these issues. Basically, it is divided into three parts. In the first section, the authors deal with the current policies of the UK government to boost the knowledge and awareness about health on the public level through different initiatives. They state the government’s agenda in this regard and provide a description of opportunities and threats as identified by the government (Protheroe, Nutbeam, & Rowlands, 2009).
The second and third sections provide empirical evidence (based on secondary research) of how government’s current initiatives to promote health literacy fail to align with the benchmark. In the end, the authors come up with conclusive opinion and recommendations. The process aligns with the objectives of research and all the phases mentioned above are well knit together to create a coherent whole. However, it would have added to the significance and reliability of the work if the authors would have allocated a section to empirical evidence to present some ideal implementation models from the real world.
4.2. The Research Question
The research question is well devised, as health literacy is a universally applicable concept. Furthermore, it is relating to the assessment of ‘government’s initiatives’ to promote literacy, which further adds to its significance.
4.3. The Research Approach and Research Design
The researchers have adopted deducted approach, as they aim to test the existing ideas of the government with regard to the importance of increasing the participation of people in health education programs. Furthermore, it also investigates into the government’s position on the desire of people to participate in such programs (i.e. it is held that the desire exists regardless of education level or social background) (Protheroe, Nutbeam, & Rowlands, 2009).
Since the research is based on the results of different consensuses such as English National Survey, the survey conducted by the National Consumer Council, and National Literacy Survey, the researchers have totally relied on ‘quantitative approach’ to research. The data collected from these secondary resources is quantifiable and measurable. Even though the sole reliance on quantitative approach is characterised by precision and exaction, yet it lacks critical insight into the matter. And, this critical comprehensiveness is the main attribute of qualitative approach (Kothari, 2004), which is missing in the underlying case.
4.4. Methods Used for Data Collection
However, it may be due to the unavailability of resources i.e. time and budget that the authors did not opt for that consideration. Their whole research is based on secondary data collection for which they have sourced authentic large scale surveys already conducted by other researchers.
4.5. The Authors’ Interpretation of the Main Findings
The data collected from the second hand sources is analysed in a statistical manner. The authors, on each step, have valued the majority’s opinion. Basing on the results and majority response to certain aspects of the study, the authors establish that current plan of the UK government is not parallel to the key requirements. The authors also stand in disagreement with the assumption that there is no mediating impact of social background and literacy level on the people’s desire to participate in health literacy programs (Protheroe, Nutbeam, & Rowlands, 2009).
5. Critique of Second Paper
This phase of the study deals with the critical appraisal of the research methods used in the second paper two i.e. “Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models”.
5.1. Research Process
The paper follows a traditional research process. This process starts with an abstract that is well constructed, as it sheds light on the purpose of the study and its importance. It also provides an indication towards the direction of research through problem statement and devised a solution. Hence, it satisfies all the criteria of being a well-thought-out abstract. Then, it flows naturally in a good sequence from literature review towards data analysis and discussion to establish a significant conclusion.
5.2. Research Problem
The research problem is clearly defined and it is the absence of any consensus that could help towards establishing the ‘health literacy’ as a concept. The scope of the issue is wide and universally applicable.
5.3. Research Approach
Contrary to the case discussed above, the authors have employed an inductive approach to this particular study. For instance, by Sørensen et al. (2012), state that health literacy has not yet been defined and understood accurately as a concept. And, no implementation model with regard to that has any conceptual background. They aim to come up with ‘integrated definition’ of health literacy based on a collection of definitions in the literature and findings of their research. By the same token, they also intended to provide benchmark implementation model for health education programs or to promote health literacy. Hence, they are inclined towards generating a new idea or theory basing on findings (inductive approach) rather than establishing results on the basis of already developed theory or a generalised idea (deductive approach) (Kothari, 2004).
5.4. Research Design
Totally in contrast to the case in the first paper, Sørensen et al. (2012) have adopted qualitative approach to their study. For example, the authors have picked 17 different definitions of health literacy from some of the most authentic sources. Apart from this, they have also analysed 12 conceptual models. These conceptual reading of definition is explanatory in nature and not quantifiable. Hence, it is safe to establish that the results are based on a critical investigation into the chosen subject matter. However, it is very unlikely for the researchers to be exact in their approach in the absence of quantitative approach (Kothari, 2004).
5.5. Data Collection
Same as in the first paper, Sørensen et al. (2012), also have no inclusion of primary research in their research methodology. All the definitions and conceptual models are collected from the already published material. Again, it may be because of limitation of resources associated with the research in hand. However, online or offline surveys could have added to the credibility and significance of the findings to a great extent.
Then, it would have also been best aligned to the objectives of the underlying paper if the researchers had checked the correspondence between the findings of primary and that of secondary data. It could have been helpful if the real audience were involved in the process because they were rather actual representatives of the majority’s opinion in the real world than any conceptual model (howsoever comprehensive it may be).
5.6. Ethical Issues
Having gone through the paper, it is found that the authors have made sure the perfect compliance with the typical code of conduct regarding research. The authors have avoided the personal bias (if any) and have presented the data in its original form. Furthermore, interpretation of data is also conducted in a neutral manner. At no stage, the authors seem to be predetermined to mold the findings in favor of their personal approach to the matter. Apart from this, there is no attempt towards ‘intellectual property theft’, as all the sources of information are referenced properly in a separate section.
5.7. The Authors’ Interpretation of Data
6. Critique of Third Paper
The researcher will appraise the paper written by Jorm (2000) (referred to as ‘third paper hereinafter) in this section of the study.
6.1. The Research Process
The research process of this paper is same as of second paper. It also starts with an abstract. Even though it is a well constructed abstract, research method needs a little explanation. It starts from abstract providing basic understanding of the issue and its background and ends on conclusion passing through review of literature and analysis of data. Hence, it also flows in natural and logical sequence.
6.2. Research Question
6.3. Research Approach
As Jorm (2000), himself states that there is no research work dealing with the issue introduced by him. It implies that there is no conceptual background of or generalised belief about the mental health literacy. The author will conceive ideas basing on findings, as common in scientific practice (Kothari, 2004). This makes sure that the author will approach inductively to the underlying matter.
6.4. Research Design
Jorm (2000), neither fully relies on quantitative data (as in the case of first paper), nor on qualitative one (as found with second paper). Instead, he utilises the combination of both styles. On one hand, he refers to the critical remarks and explanatory details retrieved from the existing literature in the section of the data analysis. On the other, he also considers the quantifiable results of already conducted surveys. Therefore, the findings of Jorm (2000), are both critically insightful and precise.
6.5. Data Collection
6.6. Data Analysis
6.7. Ethical Issues
Since the author belongs to the centre of mental research, it raises suspicion that his hypothesis (i.e. “mental health literacy is beneficial”) can be based on personal bias rather than being educated. However, throughout the data collection, presentation, and interpretation, he has never been seen obsessed with any kind of bias and has ensured the adherence to neutrality. Indeed, the author follows with the research ethics in the most appropriate manner.
7. Summary and Comparison
A summary of comparison and contrast among all three papers appraised above is provided in the table as under
7. Conclusion
All the papers appraised are characterised with good scholarly insight. Each has its own merits and demerits. However, some of the attributes common to them are an elaboration, explanatory details, critical approach to the matter, lack of reliability, insufficient provision of empirical evidence, and lack of the most reliable sources of information (i.e. primary research). In the end, all of the papers emphasise on the importance and need for health literacy.
References
Hernandez, L. M., Pleasant, A. F., Institute of Medicine (U.S.), & Institute of Medicine (U.S.). (2013). Health literacy: Improving health, health systems, and health policy around the world: workshop summary.
JORM, A. F. (2000). Mental health literacy: Public knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders. The British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 177, no. 5, pp. 396-401. doi:10.1192/bjp.177.5.396
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods & techniques. New Age International (P) Ltd.
Manley, K., McCormack, B., & Wilson, V. (2013). International Practice development in nursing and healthcare. Chichester, West Sussex: Blackwell Pub.
Protheroe, J., Nutbeam, D., & Rowlands, G. (2009). Health literacy: a necessity for increasing participation in health care. br j gen pract, vol. 59, no. 567, pp 721-723. doi:10.3399/bjgp09x472584
Sørensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., & Brand, H. (2012). Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 80. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-80
Thies, K. M., & Travers, J. F. (2006). Handbook of human development for health care professionals. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
