Li et al (2012) rigorous design minimized biases and threats to internal validity by use of randomization, comparable treatment groups and consistency. According to Li et al (2012) the nurses who provided care for the patients in the study were blind to and not involved in the administration of the interventions. They also sought study participants who lived within an hour of the hospital. However, the attrition rate over the period of the study was approximately thirty percent for both groups. The reasons were due to discharge and death, lack of time of the FCG to finish the study, travel limitations and the patients concerns of the time FCG were devoting to the study. “Oversampling, monetary incentives and home delivery of questionnaires …show more content…
538). The preparedness for follow up care was measured using the Family Preparedness Scale (FPS) and the FCG emotional coping outcomes were measured using the Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Patient outcomes were measured by post-discharge chart review and FCG report. Functional status was measured utilizing the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Depression level and cognitive status were measured using a scale adapted from Perlin, Mullan, Semple, and Skaff. Lastly FCG coping process was measured using the Family Belief Scale. Li et al (2012) described each measuring tool including the number of items used, the point scaled used, and what higher summed scores indicate (p. 538-540). There was no documentation of the instruments being used in other studies and the validity and reliability of the instruments addressed in Table …show more content…
It must be hard to have results that do not prove your hypotheses and I think the fact that Li et al admitted that shows trustworthiness. Li et al (2012) also was very honest about their limitations. The study contributes the fact that there is a need for further research in this area. They spark more questions than they really answer but that is reasonable. I do not think the fact that there was no significant evidence that there was a difference with the CARE program takes away the fact that programs like these are beneficial and the researchers make that clear by stating “ CARE may not work as a one-size-fits-all intervention” but “It may be more beneficial for subgroups of FCGs’ and “While not rising to the level of significance, some small difference in outcomes are intriguing” and “worthy of continued examination” (Li