The article “Religion Benefiting Brain Tumor Patients: a qualitative study” Ravishankar, and Bernstein (2014) provides the reader with a greater scope over the relationship between religious mechanisms used by malignant/non-malignant patients and the benefits they provided them before, during, and after they went into a craniotomy surgery. One of the purposes of the article was to provide an understanding of the small existent relationship science has with religion, and how this study can provide further research for this cause. The study done for the article is based on a qualitative research in which interviews were conducted for the patience of a single neurosurgeon. The sample size used for the study was of 36 participants consisting of 12 males and 24 females, all from a variety of religions including Protestant, Hindu, Muslims, Roman Catholic, Baptist from others. All the participants who were interviewed were asked several questions concerning their religious practices they did and how they believed they benefited from them. Many of the patient’s responses were the same, they believed they benefitted from their religious practices but never actually took it into mind during the surgery process, it was only after the surgery they realized or believed that their prayers, had some effect in the outcome. From these interviews, the researchers came up with four themes, 1) Participants did not want their physician praying with them, 2) resources such as literature, religious authority, and religious groups were encouraged by patients, 3) participants did not require a specific religious room in the hospital, 4) patients received significant benefit from using religion and religious mechanisms. For this paper, my focus is to analyze and give substantial feedback in relation to the article’s strengths and weaknesses, main emphases and to provide potential and critical information towards the main issue. From the article, the researcher states the sample size was limited to 25-30 participants because of saturation. Saturation can be defined as the state or process that occurs when no more of something can be added, in this example no more participants can make a difference in the results or outcome of the study. The real sample size of the study came out to be of 36 participants. While this is a good sample size, the problem lies with whether the saturation for this study is from 25-30. According to Van Rijnsoever (2017), there is a “more is better to less” sampling approach in theoretical saturation for qualitative studies. Van Rijnsover (2017) also emphasizes researchers use their own judgment of where to draw the line and say the last participant or the range of participants are from x number to x number. The study indicated they sampled a total of 36 participants with different religions, the distribution of the sample size is rather low, perhaps a larger sample with regards to participants and a larger variety of religions could have added or aided the study to a more accurate outcome. This study’s focus is to determine or gather more information about the relationship between the influence of religion on coping mechanisms before, during, and after craniotomy. The Data collection was from one interview per patient after the surgery. The tool used for the data collection was in tabular form, to begin with later, it was examined through a more modified analysis; axil coding and open coding. To gain a better understanding of the research and the main question of whether religion has any impact or effect on patients with craniotomy a greater data analysis is needed. Through the article, there is little or no connection between religious participants and non-religious participants. It may be reasonable to say that perhaps a mixture of qualitative and quantitative analysis can or would have had a bigger impact on the results of the study. All research studies have a unique way of approach, this article uses a single qualitative style, mixing quantitative with qualitative analysis has a greater impact on getting the point across adding or clearing up the relationship between all aspects of the study. in a study done by Guetterman et al. (2015), he states from his results the most prevalent types of joint displays were statistical a quantitative approach and side-by-side comparison a qualitative method, this show that by mixing both quantitative and qualitative methods it can give a better response to the articles the main question. A variety of questions were asked to each participant concerning their opinion of the effect their religion had on the outcome of their surgery and how comfortable they were knowing they had these spiritual mechanisms with them. The researchers lack in questions to interviewees could have made a difference in the outcome of the study especially, if the questions were distributed among an equal set of participants religious and non-religious. The method of interviewing the participants is one of the better ways of data collection in a qualitative healthcare research. However, the researcher could have used a method concerning focus group. In the article Qualitative research on Geriatric Mental Health: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities by Hinton Ladson (2010) the reflection of the paper list the advantages of using this approach in a qualitative study. instead of using a single interview method the researcher could provide both single and focus group interviews to give a more accurate result. Although the article provides more information to help further research on this overall subject, there are certain areas of concentration the researcher could have improved on or given more information over. The author began by giving us the target of the article with a set of data analysis and research methods, and although they do provide some information of the relationship between religion and the influence it has over craniotomy patients there is much more work that could have been done to exploit further research regarding the main question. By changing the sample size, methods of analysis, and number of set questions the author’s results could have been altered to a better view.