Spinal cord injury is linked not only with motor and neural deficiencies but also with visceral moto system disablements. This constitutes endangered cardiovascular, respiratory, urinary, gastrointestinal, thermoregulatory and genitive liveliness. Traditional nursing methods for these patients centred on primary care but did not have a satisfactory realization of the condition austerity and personal preferences. With a thorough assessment of the patient’s signs, laboratory and ultrasound reports, a quantitative evaluation-centred nursing approach can distinguish the various critical care requirements and implement personalized treating arbitration to lessen difficulties and improve the disease’s recovery. The research tries to understand the impact of quantitative evaluation-centered nursing mediation on the bowel function and life status of patients having neurogenic bowel dysfunction after spinal cord injury. For the research study, patients were unevenly grouped into observation category (n = 92) and control category (n = 92) through a random digit index. The control group patients were assigned routine nurses, and those in the observation category were provided quantitative assessment-based nursing intervention. Rehabilitation of bowel function, state of life and fulfilment were correlated between the two assortments.
The participants’ sample was patients, including one-hundred and thirteen men and seventy-one women, ranging from the age of 35 to 70 years. Of the total sample, there were three different categories; 73 the first category comprised of total damage and had 73 incidents, the second category comprised of lumbosacral damage with 58 cases, the third group consisted of cervical spinal cord injury and had 40 cases, and the last category thoracic spinal cord injury with 13 cases. The sex, years and nature of spinal cord injury were not notably distinct between the observation and control groups. The follow up was close, and the patients were assigned nurses for monitoring. The control category patients were assigned customary nurses for disease medical learning, psychical care, controlling patients to have more fresh greens, fruits, and special dietary fibre meals. For responses from the sample population, home-made questionnaires were used to ascertain the content of the patients. The questionnaires contained three categories: contentment, overall contentment and non-contented. The contentment percentage shows the portion of patients with overall satisfaction (Zhang et al., 2018).
Was the sampling method and inclusion/exclusion criteria adequate to reduce sampling bias? My response is yes. The study applied a fair sampling method as the sample population was allotted at random into the observation group (n = 92) and control group (n = 92), employing a random digit index. Besides, the sample included both female and male. There were 113 females and 71 men. There is a slight difference between the two sizes. If the sampling method was biased, there could be a big difference between the number of women and men who participated in the study.