A theory refers to an articulate collection of propositions, which have already been tested and are regarded as correct. Hence, these propositions can be taken as principles for coming up with explanations, along with predictions for various ideas, which are intended at explaining facts of different resulting events (Butts & Rich, 2011). In turn, validation refers to the process of establishing and substantiating how accurate, sound, or legitimate something is (Chinn & Kramer, 2013). This paper intends to look at theories, which have been used over time to validate a research project in the environment of clinical nursing. The research project to be considered is a lasting care of chronic illness.
Lasting Care of Chronic Illness
Two theories suggest that there is a deficiency in chronic illness care. The first theory suggests that an increase in demand for medical care due to the increasing number of people suffering from chronic illnesses and in basic skills and technology used for care has led to an insufficiency in care for chronic illness (Chinn & Kramer, 2013). The second theory suggests that the system of care has been unable to meet the prevailing demands due to poor organization in the system of delivery and constraints involved when making use of up-to-date information technology.
Chronic illness is a term used to refer to a condition in health of human beings when effects from a disease last for a long time before fully showing. In many cases, chronic illnesses refer to diseases whose course takes over three months (Chinn & Kramer, 2015). The most common chronic illnesses are: arthritis that affects joints of a person, diabetes that is a rise in the level of blood sugar of an individual to a very high level or a fall to a very low level, asthma that is a condition of the respiratory system of a human being, viral diseases that include HIV/AIDS along with Hepatitis C, COPD that affects how a person breathes, and cancer that is an overgrowth of cells.
Just as the two theories suggest, necessary resources for lasting care of chronic illness would not be available. This is due to a number of factors. The structure of the system of healthcare and how it functions should be considered. This refers to how components such as hospitals, centers for rehabilitation, facilities for lasting care, clinics, and physicians relate with each other in order to enable a smooth interaction between the components (Butts & Rich, 2011). The deficiency in structure would be in the form of cases of fragmented care in addition to care that is poorly coordinated. It may also be due to restrictions imposed on roles of patients and their families.
Deficiencies in structure may also result from a failure in practicing evidence-based medicine as well as inadequate utilization of information technology. However, the most prevalent cause of deficiency in the structure of the system of healthcare is the lack of support for care of chronic illness by the conceptual representation built upon the foundation created in the system (Chinn & Kramer, 2013). The second factor causing unavailability of necessary resources for lasting care of chronic illness is personnel. There is a shortage of personnel who are responsible for taking care of patients suffering from chronic illness. This has been caused by a frequent decrease in the number of clinicians responsible for performing primary care of patients.
It is evident that there are few institutions giving adequate training on care for chronic illness. The situation as it is today does not expose health education students to environments that favor attendance of patients who suffer from chronic illness in their regular practical classes (Vogel, 2011). The third factor causing the unavailability of necessary resources for lasting care of chronic illness is payment. Financial incentives used in care of chronic illness are misaligned. This implies that the incentives used rarely promote effectiveness in care of chronic illness.
Patients are linked with stakeholders and plans for care by observing a series of financial transactions. This then shows that existing financial incentives rarely align with the main aim of the system of health care, which is to provide optimal care to patients with chronic illness (Chinn & Kramer, 2013). Furthermore, gaps exist in coverage. For instance, it is evident all over the country that most private plans of health insurance in addition to programs for the public care like Medicare hardly ever cover services that individuals suffering from chronic illness consider as the most important for attending to their health.
In general, health care insurance plans allocate more priority to heightened medical care, which is provider directly as opposed to clinical accommodating services or non-clinical sympathetic services that patients with chronic illness require (Butts & Rich, 2011). The policies relating to the coverage and benefits of public and private health care plans are also seen to encourage costly methods of care, which are institutionally based, at the expense of cheaper home-based forms of care and community-based forms of care.
This then implies that patients suffering from chronic illness fail to get adequate cover in the form of services for prevention, assessment of patients, as well as coordination of methods of care and their management. In addition, very few plans of health care have room for compensation of physicians who have engaged in teaching patients with chronic illness, which is why patients may try to treat themselves on their own without necessarily involving a health practitioner (Vogel, 2011). Notably, the system of health care, which exists in the country at the moment, is barely equipped for treating patients suffering from chronic illness. This then means that if a patient has different chronic diseases, then the system will fully fail at attending to im or her.
Practical Validation Methodologies
In different settings of care for chronic illness, various methods may be used for validation. The aim of validation in a system of health care would be providing a couple of guarantees, which are well-defined, on the accuracy of methods to be used for care of chronic illness (Chinn & Kramer, 2015). There are four ways of validating information. The first way is to use a data form of validation. The second way is to use range validation along with constraint validation. The third way is to employ code validation in addition to a cross-reference form of validation. Lastly, the forth way would be structured validation.
In lasting care of chronic illness, the form of validation used will mainly depend on the scope of the method of care to be employed, the complexity of the method, and the rationale for various operations that may be involved when validating information (Vogel, 2011). When using a data form of validation, it is expected that consistency is realized in information given by different patients suffering from chronic illness. The matter is that they may feel that some reasons have contributed to a failure of accessing proper medication for the chronic illness they are suffering from.
Notably, this may include information on insurance covers held by patients and services received from public institutions. This type of validation may be effective as it will involve checking for validation as the first step and a situation check action as the second step (Chinn & Kramer, 2015). The first step, which is checking for validation, will employ rules of data computation in order to be able to determine whether information given is valid. In turn, the second step, which is a situation check action, will mainly give feedback as a way of further enforcement of validity of the information.
When it comes to the use of range validation along with constraint validation, effectiveness may not be attained. This is due to the fact that the procedure used in such forms of validation has set maximum and minimum ranges (Vogel, 2011). For patients suffering from chronic illness, it would be hard to allocate a maximum number of patients or a minimum number of patients. It may also be hard to allocate a maximum or minimum number of causes that may lead to a person not acquiring proper medication. It may however be easy to note consistency in different patients’ information.
Code validation, in addition to cross reference form of validation, may be a very effective method for validating information on the lack of proper care given to patients suffering from chronic illness (Butts & Rich, 2011). This will involve the use of tests on patients’ information and well-known information from the two theories given for the paper. The tests will also be combined with additional operations aimed at verifying consistency of information collected about patients with requirements given by external rules and relating to the constraints of validity, which may be relevant to other specific organizations and the context used to arrive at assumptions.
Structured validation would also be an effective way of testing for validity. This is due to the fact that this form of validation gives room to the use of steps employed by other forms of validation of information techniques together with complex ways of processing assumptions (Vogel, 2011). This may involve testing the closeness of information given by patients who suffer from chronic illness, as well as of information given by the two theories used in the paper. Information from well-known bodies such as the department of health and institutions for research may also come in handy for showing validity of information or the lack of availability of proper care channels for patients suffering from chronic illness.
Methods involved in this form of validation include character checks. This method ensures that only expected information about chronic illness is given in the tests. The second method is batch totals whose aim is to check for any missing records. This method is very helpful when considering information about cost (Szabo & Babuska, 2011). The third method is a cardinality check. The aim of this method is to ensure that each assumption given is backed up by a convincing number of reported cases. The fourth method is using check digits. This is when numerical data are used.
The fifth method is the use of consistency checks. This ensures that information given by different patients with chronic illness correspond with each other. The sixth method is control of totals. In this method, tallies are considered with respect to information given by patients and researchers (Pankevich, Wizemann, & Altevogt, 2012). The seventh method is checks for consistency using the cross system. Under this method, information is compared using different systems of collecting information from patients suffering from chronic illness. The eighth method is to check for data types. This method works by comparing information given by patients with the classification of information by the researcher.
The ninth method is checking for file existence. This method involves ensuring that all information collected from individual patients is available. The tenth method is checking for format. The aim of this method is to ensure that information is aligned in a way that is presentable and easily understood (Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel, 2011). The eleventh method involves checking for hash totals. This gives a summary of parties involved in answering questions for the research. The twelfth method involves checking for limit. This is when data are compared for either an upper limit or a lower limit.
The thirteenth method is a logic check. This method is aimed at ensuring that information collected from patients about the research is not subject to logiccal error. The fourteenth method is presence check. Under this method, all important information about lasting care for chronic illness patients is checked for incorporation (George, 2011). The fifteenth method is a range check. Under this method, information about patients is analyzed considering individual patients. For instance, it looks at how long a patient has been suffering from chronic illness.
The sixteenth method is spelling check along with grammar check. This method looks at how words are presented and how sentences are structured to ensure ease in understanding the message they carry (Feldman, Alexander, & Greenberg, 2011). The seventeenth method is uniqueness check. This method ensures that the presented research has uniqueness for every value used. For instance, it may include names of patients who suffer from chronic illness involved in the research.
Factors that Would Facilitate the Research
The first factor to consider in any setting is the population involved in the research. The criteria used for selection of participating members should focus mainly on people who come from an area that is largely affected by chronic diseases. The best group to consider is adults. However, pregnant women should be exempted from such type of research (Committee on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future of Nursing, at the Institute of Medicine., Robert Wood Johnson Foundation., & Institute of Medicine (U.S.), 2011). The second factor to consider is availability of health centers and hospitals for the public in the area. This is done to enable collaboration with providers of care for the public in giving referrals to patients for participating in the research.
It is important to create awareness in the public. This therefore implies that the third important factor to consider is coverage by the media. With coverage, patients who suffer from different chronic diseases may consider presenting themselves personally to the research team in order to be a part of the research (Chinn & Kramer, 2015). Information can also be availed to the public through printing of fliers and posting them on waiting areas for patients in public health care centers. The fourth significant factor is availability of laws that favor regular conducts of researches on chronic diseases.
The fifth factor to consider includes methods used to collect data. The most effective way would be dividing all parties involved in the research into small focus groups where they can comfortably engage in discussions. Questions should be given to all groups in the form of scripts (Chinn & Kramer, 2013). Each team should follow the script to the letter. A digital recorder should be used for recording the ongoing research. One individual should be mandated with taking of notes and documenting all observations. The sixth factor is willingness of participants to share information in a broad way.
The most essential information from participants would be perceptions they hold about the magnitude of the chronic illness they suffer from. Moreover, it also involves information on symptoms that participants have (Butts & Rich, 2011). In addition, it would be helpful to find out from patients the impact of their chronic illness on their families and the community. From this survey, an analysis of risks involved can be performed. Prevention methods and treatment techniques can now be clearly addressed. The existing infrastructure can be analyzed critically along with services it provides.
Then, it would be easy to forecast challenges faced by patients suffering from chronic diseases and factors that facilitate them. After all this, recommendations can be given. The seventh fundamental factor is analysis of data (Vogel, 2011). The best method to use for the analysis of data is an approach that allows analyzing content. This will help in identifying those themes that are related to factors involved in facilitating and preventing patients with chronic diseases from being involved in self-management of their disease by putting more emphasis on relevant questions.
The eighth factor is the use of coding. This is to enable compressing of information collected through the use of computer technologies. Such methods will clearly show differences that may exist between any participant groups. After noting the differences, a room for discussing and resolving the differences is created. After making a review of texts and then grouping them by the use categories for codes, perceptions held by patients on the chronic illness they suffer from can be organized using a table (Szabo & Babuska, 2011). The table should show acceptance of patients for the disease they suffer from through various stages marred by change and contrasting factors that help or prevent chronic disease patients from managing their illness.
Quotes should be selected to represent every stage of the participating patients’ phrases. The selected quotes should be incorporated in the final results table. This is to enable clarity of information on a number of times every stage has been referred to. If any themes that are cross cutting can be identified, but not be linked to a specific stage, then they should be documented separately (Pankevich et al., 2012). The results should thereafter be combined to find differences and similarities in the findings. This will help in preparing for an informed continued research on lasting care for chronic illness. In order to conclude, a review should be made on the findings to identify quotes that can be used to generally describe all the data.
The ninth factor, which is equally important, is availability of translators. Translators should be involved into the process of documenting findings and the whole process of the research carried out in different languages in order to enable more individuals to benefit from the information by ensuring easy comprehension of the information.