In a couple of recent blog entries I noted what you can and cannot learn from research 1) titles & 2) abstracts. Now, let me introduce you to the next part of research article: Introduction (or sometimes called Background or no title at all!). Introduction immediately follows the abstract.
The introduction/background “[a] outlines the background of the problem or issue being examined, [b] summarizes the existing literature on the subject, and [c] states the research questions, objectives, and possibly hypothesis” (p. 6, Davies & Logan, 2012)
This section follows the abstract. It may or may not have a heading(s) of “Introduction” or “Background” or both. Like the abstract, the Introduction describes the problem in which the researcher is interested & sometimes the specific research question or hypothesis that will be measured.
In the Intro/Background you will get a more full description of why the problem is a priority for research and what is already known about the problem (i.e., literature 
review).
Key point #1: Articles & research that are reviewed in theIntro/Background should be mostly within the past 5-7 years. Sometimes included are classic works that may be much older OR sometimes no recent research exists. If recent articles aren’t used, this should raise some questions in your mind. You know well that healthcare changes all the time!! If old studies are used the author should explain.
Key point #2: The last sentence or two in theIntro/Background is usually the research question or hypothesis (unless the author awards it its own section). If you need to know the research question/hypothesis right away, you can skip straight to the end of the Intro/background—and there it is!
Critical Thinking: 1) Read the abstract then 2) Read the 1st section of this 2015 free full-text article by Marie Flem Sørbø et al.: Past and recent abuse is associated with early cessation of breast feeding: results from a large prospective cohort in Norway
- Is it called Introduction/Background or both?
- What literature is already available on the problem or issue being examined?
- What are the research questions/hypotheses? (After reading above you should know exactly where to look for these now.)
For More Info: Check out especially Steps #1, #2, & #3 of How to read a research article.
questions correctly?” “Will those who respond (as opposed to those who don’t respond) have unique ways of thinking so that my respondents do not represent everyone well?” and a BIG worry “Will they even fill out and return the questionnaire?”
Postal and electronic questionnaires are a relatively inexpensive way to collect information from people for research purposes. If people do not reply (so called ‘non-responders’), the research results will tend to be less accurate. This systematic review found several ways to increase response. People can be contacted before they are sent a postal questionnaire. Postal questionnaires can be sent by first class post or recorded delivery, and a stamped-return envelope can be provided. Questionnaires, letters and e-mails can be made more personal, and preferably kept short. Incentives can be offered, for example, a small amount of money with 
a postal questionnaire. One or more reminders can be sent with a copy of the questionnaire to people who do not reply.
One source of rich word or narrative (qualitative) data for answering nursing questions is nurses’ stories. Dr. Pat Benner RN, author of Novice to Expert explains two things we can do to help nurses fully tell their stories so we can learn the most from their practice.
Quasi-experiments are a lot of work, yet don’t have the same scientific power to show cause and effect, as do randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An RCT would provide better support for any hypothesis that X causes Y. [As a quick review of what quasi-experimental versus RCT studies are, see 
and an experimental group. If the researcher wants to compare health outcomes of smokers with non-smokers, the researcher cannot assign some people to smoke and others not to smoke! Why? Because we already know that smoking has significant harmful effects. (Of course, in a dictatorship, by using the police a researcher could assign them to smoke or not smoke, but I don’t think we wanna go there.)
experimental groups. If the researcher wants to compare health outcomes of
to control & experimental groups. It costs $ & time to get a list of subjects and then assign them to control & experimental groups using random numbers table or drawing names from a hat.
![welcome[1]](https://discoveringyourinnerscientist.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/welcome1.gif?w=163&h=119)
Herein lies a weak link in the cause-and-effect chain. Quasi- designs are NOT as strong as true experimental designs because something other than our treatment (in this case pet therapy) may have created any difference in outcomes (e.g., anxiety levels). Why? Here’s your answer.
In a quasi experimental design
