Introduction
Nicotine is identified as a highly addictive psychoactive substance. In fact, it is behaviorally and biologically addictive making it difficult for cigarette smokers to quit as any quitting action would be accompanied by withdrawal symptoms (Barbeau, Burda & Siegel, 2013). To address the concern that links quitting with harm, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) has been proposed. The therapy acts by replacing nicotine with a less harmful material so that the behavioral and biological aspects of smoking are not disrupted (Silla, Beard & Shahab, 2014). As such, nursing practitioners should recommend NRT for smokers who have expressed the intention to quit in order to improve the cessation efficiency. Benchmark Capstone Project Change Proposal Nursing Paper.
A comparison of research questions
The present research intends to compare the cessation efficiency of NRT against other smoking cessation therapies with the intention of identifying the most efficient approach for use by cigarette smokers intending to quit. As such, it intends to answer the question of: Is NRT is more efficient than other smoking cessation therapies to justify special attention from nursing personnel? To answer this question, it is prudent to collect secondary information from sources talking about NRT. Buller et al. (2014) asked the question: How useful and effective is nicotine patch (NRT) in smoking cessation interventions? Silla, Beard and Shahab (2014) ask the question of: what attitudes and beliefs do smokers and ex-smokers exhibit towards NRT? Barbeau, Burda and Siegel (2013) ask the question: do e-cigarettes present better efficacy results when compared to other NRT strategies? Thurgood et al. (2015) ask two questions. The first question is: what is the effectiveness of different smoking cessation interventions for patients with substance use disorders? The second question is: what is the impact of smoking cessation treatment on substance use outcomes? Garcia-Rodriguez et al. (2014) ask the question: What are the estimated relapse rates and predictors to smoking when using NRT among young adults? Benchmark Capstone Project Change Proposal Nursing Paper.Chen et al. (2016) ask the question: What are the high-risk smoking behaviors and barriers to smoking cessation among homeless individuals? Hakim, Chowdhury and Uddin (2017) ask the question: What are the correlates of unsuccessful smoking cessation among adults in Bangladesh? Diemert et al. (2013) asked the question: What are the predictors of young adults smoking cessation behavior? The research questions from the eight selected journal articles are all concerned with smoking cessation, six of them focusing on NRT. Their relevance to the current research is highlighted by the fact that they all address the same topic (smoking cessation) for the same population (young adults). As such, they will be useful in answering the present question of whether NRT is more efficient than other smoking cessation therapies to justify special attention from nursing personnel.
A comparison of sample populations
Buller et al. (2014) applied a quantitative research approach whereby a sample of 3,094 smokers was recruited aged between 18 and 30 years. Silla, Beard and Shahab (2014) applied a qualitative approach that recruited 15 participants who included current and ex-smokers. Barbeau, Burda and Siegel (2013) applied a qualitative approach that recruited 11 participants who included 9 men and 2 women. Thurgood et al. (2015) applied a qualitative approach that evaluated randomized control trials published between 1990 and 2014. Garcia-Rodriguez et al. (2014) applied a quantitative research approach that relied on secondary data from Waves 1 and 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions. Chen et al. (2016) applied a quantitative research approach that recruited 100 smokers from a homeless shelter. Hakim, Chowdhury and Uddin (2017) applied a quantitative research approach that used secondary data from 2009 Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) for Bangladesh in which 1,552 smokers older than 14 years were recruited. Diemert et al. (2013) applied a quantitative design that relied on secondary data from the Ontario Tobacco Survey in which 592 young adult smokers were recruited as participants. The eight studies are focused on smokers as the population of interest, with the qualitative studies recruiting a smaller sample of participants (between 11 and 15 smokers) while the quantitative studies recruited a larger sample of participants (between 100 and 3,094 smokers). The present study will make use of these aspects by focusing on recruiting the participants from the population of interest (smokers older than 17 years) Benchmark Capstone Project Change Proposal Nursing Paper.
A comparison of the limitations of the study
< Order this paper