Background
The first research presented by Di Battista et al. (2017), explores the application of the basic need model (BNT) as a basis to understand the perspective of participants on workshop dietitian-led lifestyle interference plan. The research took a keen interest in type 2 diabetes prevention plan workplace to deliver a dietitian-led cardiovascular disease program. The research is grounded on alleviating the growing economic and health burden, which is connected with diet-related conditions. This study is significant to nursing because it allows the implementation of a cost-effective framework that will help people manage dietary diseases.
The second article presented by Ljung et al. (2013), aims to explore how persons living with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases undergo group treatment which emphasizes on lifestyle for both primary and secondary intervention methods. The research developed from the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular conditions. Research indicates that 80 percent of these incidences can be prevented through adopting better, healthier lifestyles. The central objective of the study has a significant bearing in nursing because we observe how nurses can use the models which focus on improving lifestyle changes for group treatment in preventing diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular conditions. The study revealed that patients who take part in this type of lifestyle treatment plan underwent a course of self-enhancement, which was dependent on their duty for health, and it also promoted their skills in supporting others. This implied that the lifestyle focus group treatment encouraged dissimilar components which strengthen participant’s self-efficacy for behavioral change.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
PICOT Question
The central question in this research is whether lifestyle intervention programs have been effective in increasing the probability of behavior change maintenance?
How Do These Two Articles Support the Nurse Practice Issue You Chose?
Both research articles are looking to determine the effect of lifestyle intervention programs in encouraging behavioral change among patients living with cardiovascular conditions and diabetes mellitus. The initial research by Di Battista et al. (2017), seeks to explore the application BNT as a foundation to understand the perspective of participants on the workshop dietitian-led lifestyle intervention plan. On the other hand, the second theory by Ljung et al. (2013), looks to explore how persons living with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular conditions undergo group treatment which emphasizes on lifestyle for both primary and secondary intervention techniques.
By satisfying the research objectives, both pieces of research will be able to indicate the effect of lifestyle intervention programs in promoting behavior change among patients living with cardiovascular conditions and type 2 diabetes. Both pieces of research will be able to satisfy the PICO question because the comparison and intervention groups undergo different lifestyle intervention programs in order to determine its effectiveness in encouraging behavioral change.
Method of Study
The first research by Di Battista et al. (2017), utilized face-to-face interviews as the primary data collection technique. The research collected data from fifteen partakers who had formerly finished a workplace diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular conditions prevention program. During the interviews, the researchers documented changes in weight as a representation of the behavior change. 12 out of the 15 participants in the study were females. The entire study was broken down into a number of unique phases. The first phase is the initial pre-intervention discussion, where the researcher conducted face-to-face sessions each lasting 45 minutes. The next phase is the intensive stage where the researchers conducted one group session each week for eight weeks, and each group sessions lasted between 60 and 75 minutes (Di Battista et al., 2017). The other phase is appraisal which lasted two weeks in the post-intensive stage. It was comprised of the face-to-face session which lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. The final stage is the maintenance stage, where researchers conducted seven sessions at six weeks intervals. Each group session lasted between 10 and 60 minutes.
The other research by Ljung et al. (2013), used qualitative interviews where nineteen patients who attended lifestyle-focused groups treatment that was grounded on the social cognitive model at a small behavioral, medical hospital in Sweden. After data was collected through the interviews, the research proceeded to transcribe verbatim, and the data were analyzed based on Malterud’s systematic text condensation.
Both articles utilize qualitative research as their primary research design. Both research papers used interviews as the primary data collection technique. The interviews were advantageous because researchers were able to structure questions in a way participants could easily answer. This proved to be useful because researchers receive a clear perspective from participants. However, interviews also have some disadvantages that may affect the quality of the research. The main disadvantage is structured interviews are, and they are often non-flexible, which implies that the researchers are not able to introduce new questions which may be relevant to the research.
Results of Study
The results of the initial research presented by Di Battista et al. (2017), shows that the research identified twelve descriptive themes related to concepts of autonomy, relatedness, and competence. These themes were subsequently assigned to three fields, namely, behavior change initiation, intervention commitment, and behavioral change maintenance. Weight loss was found to be linked with the sustenance of physical activity and dietary changes. The research found that lifestyle intervention programs have been effective in increasing the probability of behavior change maintenance. This finding will help nurses to set us a cost-effective framework which will encourage people to adopt behavioral change which will help prevent the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular conditions.
Findings from the second research presented by Ljung et al. (2013), demonstrate that patients who took part in the group-based lifestyle treatment underwent the procedure of self-improvement that enhanced their grasp of personal responsibilities for health. The research also indicated that the participants of the research advanced their abilities in looking for aid in others. The overriding inference from the research was lifestyle-focused groups’ treatment which was grounded on cognitive model helped to encourage long-term behavioral change through improving patients’ self-efficacy. Nurses can use findings from the research to set up lifestyle-focused group treatment methods which are grounded in cognitive theory to encourage long-term behavioral change by promoting patient’s self-efficacy.
Outcome Comparison
The expected outcome of the PICO question is, lifestyle intervention programs have been effective in increasing the probability of behavior change maintenance among patients living with cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes. The findings from both pieces of research support the expected outcome of the PICO question. Findings from the initial research by Di Battista et al. (2017), show that work delivery of dietitian-led prevention programs for diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular conditions was effective in encouraging behavioral change. Findings from the second research presented by Ljung et al. (2013), indicates that patients who took part in the group-based lifestyle treatment underwent the procedure of self-improvement that enhanced their grasp of personal responsibilities for health.
References
Di Battista, E. M., Bracken, R. M., Stephens, J. W., Rice, S., Thomas, M., Williams, S. P., ... & Davies, V. (2017). Workplace delivery of a dietitian ‐ led cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes prevention programme: A qualitative study of participants’ experiences in the context of Basic Needs Theory. Nutrition bulletin , 42 (4), 309-320.
Ljung, S., Olsson, C., Rask, M., & Lindahl, B. (2013). Patient experiences of a theory-based lifestyle-focused group treatment in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes. International journal of behavioral medicine , 20 (3), 378-384.
