Qualitative Research Critique

Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: Quantitative Mini-Critique

In scientific research, quantitative methods are used in order to provide empirical data for the investigation of various phenomena. In their article, Cruz et al., (2016) use quantitative research to identify the specific variables that apply to the occurrence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. This paper analyzes the research qualities of the article, noting that it fails to live up to the standards expected of quantitative research.

Ethical Aspects of the Study

Before the commencement of the study, permission was granted by the Ethics Committee at Fluminense Federal University. Under the protocols of the Committee, the researchers were given the approval to start the process

These include chronic hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia and gestational hypertension. While chronic hypertension refers to that observed before pregnancy and disappears afterward, preeclampsia is unique in that it appears during pregnancy and resolves within twelve weeks. On the other hand, eclampsia is more severe than preeclampsia. The fact that all these disorders appear in pregnancy, therefore, begs investigation into the factors that make some women more susceptible to them, and this forms the basis for this current study. The problem statement in this research is also easy to locate, stating that the complications arising from HDP are associated with an increased maternal risk, increased fetal and neonatal morbidity, low birth weight and fetal

In fact, the data collection methods are barely stated. The researchers mention the methods used only in passing, and not in sufficient detail to allow a deep appreciation of the methods used in the research. In this manner, the study detailed in this article fails in a major aspect. Nevertheless, one can infer that two main methods were used to collect data collection. The first was through a content analysis of documents at the maternity hospital. Furthermore, research of the relevant records was done to collect information about the identifiers of the study participants. In this regard, the researchers state that a particular instrument was used in the identification of the variables. However, they do not make any mention of what this ‘specific instrument' is, and this lends further doubt as to the quality of research employed in this study, or at least the documentation of the research