As discussed by Cutliffe and Ward (2006), the ability to properly critique research articles should be possessed by every nurse, since this empowers the nurse to select which research outcomes to trust in guiding his or her nursing practice. In line with this value, the study conducted by Gil and Loh (2010) is critiqued. The study is based on a premise that has been supported by prior research, which is that perceived stress is “associated with fewer health-promoting behaviors,” particularly when observed among primiparous mothers (Gil & Loh, 2010, p. 348). While there have been previous studies that supported this inference, Gil & Loh (2010) asserted that the mechanisms that are responsible for the observed effects have yet to be identified and understood. Thus, the study addresses this problem by determining how primiparous mothers’ optimism mediates “the relationship between perceived stress and health-promoting behaviors.” (p. 348).

In exploring this problem, Gil & Loh (2010) conducted an extensive review of available literature. The study examined over 40 previous studies, many of which had explored the relationship between perceived stress and health-promoting behaviors among primiparous mothers and confirmed it. While not all of the studies are described in detail in the study, there were sufficient descriptions made to show the existing gap in literature, and sufficient theoretical support in the possible role of optimism in the given relationship. However, less than half of the references, 17 in total were less than 10 years old, although a majority of these are from within the last 5 years. It was supported in the literature review of Gil & Loh (2010) that there is clearly an inverse relationship between stress and health-promoting behaviors, and this has been confirmed within the subgroup of primiparous mothers. It is also known that optimism is a strong mediating variable for relationships involving stress. What remains unknown is whether or not optimism can be considered as a significant mediating element in the context of the relationship between perceived stress and health-promoting behaviors among primiparous mothers.

Gil & Loh (2010) explicitly stated the use of “the transactional model of stress and coping and the model of behavioral self-regulation” (p. 348) in the theoretical framework that guided their research. In their discussion of this theoretical framework, it was clear that the theory was strongly grounded in existing research, with its roots dating as far back as the 1960’s, and its application persisting to current times. This implies that the theory has been tested for validity in numerous occasions and has been found to be valid in various contexts. Thus, it may be classified as a scientific theory that identifies possible relationships among concepts that are being examined. The theory used by Gil & Loh (2010) is relevant to the body of knowledge in the field of nursing primarily since stress is a significant factor that affects the different stakeholders in nursing operations. Thus, being able to explain the causes of such stress, its relationships with other variables, and the means through which stress can be alleviated are important considerations in nursing research.

The study explicitly stated three hypotheses that it intended to test and implied a fourth. These are that there is a significant inverse relationship between perceived stress and health-promoting behaviors in new primiparous mothers, that primiparous mothers who are more optimistic would perceive less stress than those who are less optimistic, that mothers who are more optimistic would engage in more health-promoting behaviors, and that adding the effect of optimism to the relationship between perceived stress and health-promoting behavior significantly changes that relationship (Gil & Loh, 2010). The first hypothesis is essential because it enables the study to check if the premise under which it operates is visible in its study’s outcomes. That is, that the inverse relationship that it intends to investigate further exists in the first place. The succeeding hypotheses are that actual inquiries that probed into the problem that the research sought to address. The first two indicated a need to determine significant difference between those who are optimistic and those who are not and among people with varying levels of optimism with regard to the two variables that operate in the relationship of interest. One criticism is that the fourth hypothesis was not stated explicitly, and that the hypotheses were only stated in the discussion and not earlier in the study. However, these criticisms are superficial, as the hypotheses remain of quality despite of them.