Discussion: Searching Databases

Discussion: Searching Databases Discussion: Searching Databases When you decide to purchase a new car, you first decide what is important to you. If mileage and dependability are the important factors, you will search for data focused more on these factors and less on color options and sound systems. Discussion: Searching Databases The same holds true when searching for research evidence to guide your clinical inquiry and professional decisions. Developing a formula for an answerable, researchable question that addresses your need will make the search process much more effective. One such formula is the PICO(T) format. ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS In this Discussion, you will transform a clinical inquiry into a searchable question in PICO(T) format, so you can search the electronic databases more effectively and efficiently. You will share this PICO(T) question and examine strategies you might use to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question. To Prepare: Review the materials offering guidance on using databases, performing keyword searches, and developing PICO(T) questions provided in the Resources. Review the Resources for guidance and develop a PICO(T) question of interest to you for further study. BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4 Post your PICO(T) question, the search terms used, and the names of at least two databases used for your PICO(T) question. Then, describe your search results in terms of the number of articles returned on original research and how this changed as you added search terms using your Boolean operators. Finally, explain strategies you might make to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question. Be specific and provide examples. Discussion: Searching Databases BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 4 Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days and provide further suggestions on how their database search might be improved. SUBMISSION AND GRADING INFORMATION Grading Criteria To access your rubric: Week 4 Discussion Rubric Name: NURS_6052_Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric Grid View List View Excellent Good Fair Poor Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.Supported by at least three current, credible sources.Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.Supported by at least three credible sources.Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s).One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.Post is cited with two credible sources.Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.Contains only one or no credible sources.Not written clearly or concisely.Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.Responses to faculty questions are missing.No credible sources are cited. Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.Responses to faculty questions are missing.No credible sources are cited. Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_ Required Readings Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer. Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54) Chapter 3, “Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions” (pp. 55–92) Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks for LIS professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6 (2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WS5N. Retrieved from https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EB… Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases. Library of Congress. (n.d.). Search/browse help – Boolean operators and nesting . Retrieved September 19, 2018, from https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/htdocs/help… Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing, 110 (3), 58–61. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000368959.11129.79. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2010/0… Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases. Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry. American Journal of Nursing, 109 (11), 49–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/fulltext/2009/1… Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases. Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Searching for the evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110 (5), 41–47. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000372071.24134.7e. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2010/0… Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases. Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981 Walden University Library. (n.d.-b). Evidence-based practice research: CINAHL search help . Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthe… Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10