A Critical Review of the Article by Weng Et Al. (Term Paper Sample)

A Critical Review
Name
Institution Affiliation
A Critical Review
1.0 Introduction
Smoking is one of the greatest risk factors for most cardiovascular infections today and this is why most studies are dedicated to providing justifications for the smoking behavior and illustrate the mechanisms through which smoking influences human health. This report seeks to undertake a critical and systematic review of a similar study by Wang et al. (2014), with an overriding objective of analysing the objective of the paper, the methodology employed and the ultimate outcomes of the research study. The research endeavor in this paper falls in the public health discipline, and is focused on explaining the justifications for smoking behavior in order to build a framework for structuring interventions to stop the smoking behavior. This report seeks to undertake a critical analysis of the ethical practices adhered to by the researchers and contemplate any possible extensions to the research that can make it better especially with respect to the key research objectives. Finally, the report presented here carries out an overall assessment to elucidate the ultimate impact of the paper at an individual level.
2.0 The Research
The subject of this review is a research paper by Wang et al. (2014) with an overriding objective of exploring the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to smoking amongst the floating male smokers in Shanghai. Other than structuring an effective, focused research topic, one of the strengths of the research paper at the very early stage is the manner in which the researchers ground their research on a solid empirical background. The study objective is justified using an array of empirical works that necessitate an in-depth, intervention-oriented study. For instance, the study appeals to authoritative statistics to support their course and elucidate the magnitude of the situation by citing that 28.1% of the adult populations in China are smokers. It is important to note at this point that the study by Wang et al. (2014) is an intervention-based study and this is what informs the rest of the complemented by qualitative content analysis to obtain information (from 39 participants) that was required to meet the study objectives. The essence of the qualitative content analysis at this point was to undertake validity and reliability checks of the outcomes of focus group interviews. The use of content analysis by the researchers makes the study gain immense strength on the dimensions of reliability since content analysis yields the most reliable outcomes, especially when employed in a deductive category (Mayring, 2015, n.p). Nevertheless, the demographic characteristics of the participants such as age and marital status were adhered to in order to ensure sample representativeness.
The results of the study are in line with the study hypotheses. The clearest outcome of the study is to the effect that a majority of smokers are aware that the behavior indeed affects their health, but they do not have an understanding of the mechanisms through which this effect happens. The researchers also found out that smoking creates a sense of belonging for the members of the floating population in Shanghai and is a strong instrument of socialisation. The results of the study also show that most smokers are likely to comply with regulations that prohibit smoking in workplaces. Wang et al. adopt the use of first-hand account narrations of respondents in order to back up their augmented responses. The use of narrations in this particular paper gives it a participatory approach, which also serves to show the logical manner in which the researchers obtained their conclusions from the respondent accounts. The presentation of outcomes in which respondent accounts are provided and discussions conducted there from, is one section of the paper that makes the study by Wang et al. (2014) a strong research based on structure and logic.
3.0 Method and Sample – Critical Analysis
Wang et al. (2014) employed the use of focus group interviews and qualitative content analysis in order to obtain and analyse information required to meet the study objectives from 39 participants. In line with the study objectives, this methodology has certain strengths and limitations. The use of focus group interviews as was the case in the study is advantageous in circumstances where the responses are subjective and detailed information is required (McGarrell et al, 2014, p. 120). The use of focus group interviews in social research is also effective in the sense that it is flexible and creates a free atmosphere that can lead to the generation of completely new insights (ICS, 2012, n.p). This gives a significant advantage to the researchers, as they are able to administer the questionnaire and ask any questions arising out of the discussion in order to enable them obtain as much information as is necessary to achieve study objectives and broaden the scope of the study. However, the use of focus group interviews as the key technique by the researchers to obtain information provides a limitation to the endeavor of the study since respondents may be reluctant to reveal some confidential and sensitive information in focus group interviews (McGarrell et al, 2014, p. 120; Masadeh, 2012, n.p). Moreover, focus groups can condition respondents to act unnaturally thereby affecting the credibility of the responses obtained (ICS, 2012, n.p; Acocella, 2012, p. 1125-1136). Content analysis, on the other hand, came in handy for the researchers as a supplementary technique to check the excesses of focus group interviews by enabling the researchers to check for validity and reliability of the outcomes of the interviews. Use of qualitative content analysis is advantageous since it is unobtrusive and does not require contact with respondents making it cheap and effective (Jegadeesh & Wu, 2013, p. 712-729). The sample size of 39 is also good enough for a...