In “Transition from Treatment to Survivorship: Effects of a Psychoeducational Intervention on Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors,” Menesus et al. aim to showcase how a particular breast cancer education intervention study is effective among people suffering from the condition. The researchers clearly lay out this aim in the abstract and the body of the text, emphasizing the infant nature of the investigation of post-treatment breast cancer, which requires a study of this kind.
The literature review seems remarkably low effort, as the text all but admits that a literature review is outside the scope of the article, merely listing the sources that were used in their own research. The conceptual framework, however, is well described, noting the dynamic nature of quality of life.
The sample used was restricted to the members of the BCEI study, as this study is focused on its effects. The criteria used to determine the sample is specific enough that there is more control exerted over the circumstances of the subject’s quality of life. This allows the researchers to be reasonably sure that the BCEI study causes these changes. The fact that six months was their research period allows for plenty of outliers and anomalies, and they used a variety of methods to evaluate the progress of the subjects toward survivorship.
The study was well planned out, using a different study method throughout each month to gauge the effects of the BCEI study. The Breast cancer Treatment and Sociodemographic Data Tool and the Quality of Life-Breast Cancer Survivors scale were both used to provide comprehensive, quantifiable results and analysis for the variables presented in the study. The data collection methods, being qualitative methods of determining quality of life, can seem slightly less reliable than more quantitative measures, but because the main factor being examined is quality of life, it is in fact providing the researchers with the subject’s own opinion of how they are coping with breast cancer.
Threats to validity include dissembly among the subjects – not providing accurate answers and responses to questions.
The findings and conclusions are approached very strongly, and the relationships between each stage of the process are denoted. For example, there was very little difference between the baseline numbers of the control group and the experimental group (p=0.16), whereas in baseline to 2, the experimental group showed significant improvement, while the control group had a lower QOL (p <.001). In the final three month period, QOL improved even further in the experimental group (p=.004), while the control group remained nearly the same. There can be a great deal of risk of generalizability in this study, due to the qualitative nature of quality of life. However, that risk is lessened through the use of the different scales and data tools that helped provide statistical analysis of what is normally a qualitative process.
The researchers provide a great deal of information as to how to apply the findings to the practice. These findings are thought to provide better intervention treatment standards and help improve delivery methods of those standards, helping medical professionals deal with breast cancer survivors more effectively and compassionately. The evidence is consistent and high quality, and the study explains thoroughly how to apply them.
I could find no fault with the writing style – all citations, grammar, and formatting seemed to be consistent with APA format.
