Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence

Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence For this discussion, you will choose a type of data collection method and describe a scenario when it would be useful as well as potential pitfalls of the method. Use your textbook as support for your answer. Textbooks: Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence Nursing Research Read Chapter 3. Read pages 15-16 from Chapter 1. Read Chapter 14 LoBiondo – Wood & Haber 2013 Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence – Based Practice * 978 – 0323100861 Mosby, 2013, 8th edition Your initial post must be posted before you can view and respond to colleagues, must contain minimum of two (2) references, in addition to examples from your personal experiences to augment the topic. The goal is to make your post interesting and engaging so others will want to read/respond to it. Synthesize and summarize from your resources in order to avoid the use of direct quotes, which can often be dry and boring. No direct quotes are allowed in the discussion board posts. Objectives Describe various types, advantages, and disadvantages of data collection methods used in research. Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence References: Initial Post: Minimum of two (2) total references: one (1) from required course materials and one (1) from peer-reviewed references. Words Limits Initial Post: Minimum 200 words excluding references (approximately one (1) page) Note: Since it is difficult to edit the APA reference in the Blackboard discussion area, you can copy and paste APA references from your Word document to the Blackboard discussion area. Points will not be deducted because of format changes in spacing. Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence discussion_board_rubric.pdf gathering_and_appraising_literature.ppt understanding_research_findings.ppt RUBRIC: DISCUSSION BOARD (30 pts) Criteria Characteristics of initial post Support for initial post Responses to Peers APA format*; Spelling/ Grammar/ Punctuation Meets Expectations 10 to 10 Points ? Provided response with rationale. ? The post is substantive and reflects careful consideration of the literature. ? Examples from the student’s practice/experience are provided to illustrate the discussion concepts. ? Addressed all required elements of the discussion prompt. ? Well organized and easy to read. 5 to 5 Points ? Cited minimum of two references: at least one (1) from required course materials to support rationale AND one (1) from peer-reviewed* references from supplemental materials or independent study on the topic to support responses. ? The initial post is a minimum of 200 words excluding references. 10 to 10 Points ? Responses to colleagues demonstrated insight and critical review of the colleagues’ posts and stimulate further discussion ? Responded to a minimum of two (2) peers and included a minimum of one (1) peer-reviewed* or course materials reference per response. ? Responses are a minimum of 100 words and are posted on different days of the discussion period by the due date. 5 to 5 Points ? APA format** is used for in-text citations and reference list. ? Posts contain grammatically correct sentences without any spelling errors. Levels of Achievement Needs Improvement 3 to 9 Points ? Provided response missing either substantive rationale, consideration of the literature, or examples from the student’s practice/experience to illustrate the discussion concepts. ? Addresses all or most of required elements. ? Somewhat organized, but may be difficult to follow. 2 to 4 Points ? Missing one (1) required course reference AND/OR one (1) peer-reviewed reference to validate response. ? Post has at least 200 words. 4 to 9 Points ? Responses to colleagues are cursory, do not stimulate further discussion and paragraph could have been more substantial. ? Responses missing one of the following: o insight/critical review of colleague’s post, o OR respond to at least two peers, o OR a peer reviewed*or course materials reference per response ? Responses are a minimum or less than 100 words and posts were on the same date as initial post. 2 to 4 Points ? APA format is missing either in-text or at end of the reference list. ? Posts contain some grammatically correct sentences with few spelling errors. Unsatisfactory 0 to 2 Points ? Provided response with minimal rationale. ? Does not demonstrate thought and provides no supporting details or examples. ? Provides a general summary of required elements. 0 to 1 Points ? Missing 1 or more of the correct type (course or peer-reviewed) or number of references to support response. ? Post is less than 200 words or there’s no post. 0 to 3 Points ? Responses to colleagues lack critical, in depth thought and do not add value to the discussion. ? Responses are missing two or more of the following: o insight/critical review of colleagues’ post o AND/OR response to at least two peers o AND/OR a peer reviewed* reference per response. ? Responses are less than 100 words, posted same day as initial post. 0 to 1 Points ? Not APA formatted OR APA format of references has errors both in-text and at end of reference list. ? Post is grammatically incorrect. NOTE: No direct quotes are allowed in the discussion board posts. *Peer-reviewed references include professional journals (i.e. Nursing Education Perspectives, Journal of Professional Nursing, etc. – see library tab on how to access these from database searches), professional organizations (NLN, CDC, AACN, ADA, etc.) applicable to population and practice area, along with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs – National Guideline Clearinghouse). All references must be no older than five years (unless making a specific point using a seminal piece of information) References not acceptable (not inclusive) are UpToDate, Epocrates, Medscape, WebMD, hospital organizations, insurance recommendations, & secondary clinical databases. **Since it is difficult to edit the APA reference in the Blackboard discussion area, you can copy and paste APA references from your Word document to the Blackboard discussion area and points will not be deducted because of format changes in spacing. Last updated: 02/02/2017 © 2017 School of Nursing – Ohio University Page 1 of 1 Chapter 3 Gathering and Appraising the Literature Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. Literature Review ? A systematic and critical appraisal ? Provides the development and foundation of a research study ? Provides the development and foundation of the theoretical framework ? ESSENTIAL to evidence-based nursing practice Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 2 Literature Review Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 3 Theoretical or Conceptual Framework ? The basis for the development of research questions or hypotheses ? Can be viewed as a map for understanding the relationships between or among the variables in quantitative studies ? Presents the context for studying the problem ? Often illustrated using a diagram ? Integral to practice and research Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 4 Sources for Literature Review ? Primary: Research articles and books by the original author ? Secondary: Published articles or books that are written by persons other than the individual who conducted the research study or developed the theory Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 5 Literature Review: Components of Research Process ? Research question and hypothesis ? Design and method ? Outcome of the analysis Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 6 Outcome of the Analysis Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 7 Goal of the Literature Review ? ?Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence Researcher ? Develop the knowledge foundation necessary to design a sound study ? Generate research questions and hypotheses Consumer ? Answer a clinical question or solve a problem to improve patient outcomes Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 8 Literature Review: Researcher’s Perspective ? Facilitates understanding of the problem by identifying a theoretical or conceptual framework to provide a context ? Discover what is known and not known to refine the research question and hypothesis Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 9 Literature Review: Researcher’s Perspective ? Assists in the design and methods to be used ? Allows interpretation and discussion of the outcome of the analysis by comparison with previous studies Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 10 Literature Review: Consumer’s Perspective ? Answer a clinical question or solve a problem to improve patient outcomes by: ? Identifying and gathering evidence ? Critically appraising and synthesizing evidence ? Assessing the usefulness of the evidence in changing practice ? Changing practice to improve outcomes or justify current interventions ? Developing evidence-based practice projects Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 11 Literature Review: Consumer’s Perspective ? First three steps of evidence-based practice process: ? ? ? Asking clinical questions Identifying and gathering evidence Critically appraising and synthesizing the evidence or literature Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 12 PICO Format ? P ? Problem/patient population; specifically defined group ? I ? Intervention; what intervention or event will be studied? ? C ? Comparison of intervention; with what will the intervention be compared? ? O ? Outcome; what is the effect of the intervention? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 13 Hierarchy of Preappraised Evidence Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 14 Computerized Decision Support System ? Integrates evidence-based clinical information into an electronic medical record. In these systems, specific patient data can be entered and then matched against a knowledge base to generate patient-specific recommendations or assessments. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 15 Summaries ? Clinical practice guidelines and electronic evidencebased textbooks ? Evidence-based guidelines that provide recommendations based on high-quality evidence Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 16 Synopsis of Synthesis ? Provides a preappraised summary of systematic review ? Synopses provide a synthesis of the review; some include a commentary related to strength of the evidence and applicability to a patient population Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 17 Synthesis ? Systematic reviews (e.g., a Cochrane review) are a synthesis of research on a clinical topic conducted by multiple experts. ? They include quantitative summaries, meta-analysis. ? Synopsis of single studies: Keep in mind that a synopsis of a single study, while critically preappraised, still remains a single study. Most often, significant practice changes are not based on the results of a single study. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 18 Studies ? “Synopsis of a Single Study” appraisal conducted by a single expert Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 19 Types of Resources ? Print and electronic books, journals, indexes ? Refereed or peer-reviewed journal articles are the best choice because they contain the latest information. ? Books take longer to publish than journals. ? Print indexes are needed for sources not available in online databases. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 20 What Is a Refereed or Peer-Reviewed Journal? ? A panel of scholars who are experts review submitted manuscripts. ? Usually the reviews are “blind” to promote objectivity; that is, the manuscript to be reviewed does not include the name of the authors. ? The reviewers use a set of scholarly criteria to judge whether a manuscript meets the publication standards of the journal. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 21 Types of Resources ? Electronic databases ? Used to find journals, publications of professional organizations, and publications of government agencies ? CINAHL: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature ? MEDLINE ? PubMed ? Cochrane Library ? Search engines ? Electronic databases Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 22 How Far Back? ? A general timeline for most academic or evidence-based practice papers/projects is to go back in the literature at least 3 years, and preferably 5 years. Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence ? Some research projects may warrant going back 10 or more years. ? Extensive literature reviews on particular topics or a concept clarification methodology study helps limit the length of the search. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 23 Using Electronic Databases ? Find right terms to “plug in” ? Controlled vocabulary Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 24 CINAHL in the EBSCO Interface Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 25 Venn Diagram Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 26 Boolean Operators ? Boolean operators define the relationships between words or groups of words in a literature search. ? Boolean operators dictate the relationship between words and concepts: ? “AND” requires both concepts to be located within the results that are returned. ? “OR” allows the grouping together of like terms or synonyms. ? “NOT” eliminates terms from the search. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 27 Appraising the Evidence ? Organized ? Strong knowledge base ? Quantitative (meta-analyses) and qualitative (metasyntheses) systematic reviews ? “Does the literature search seem adequate?” ? “Does the report demonstrate scholarly writing?” ? The key to a strong literature review is a careful search of published and unpublished literature. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 28 Clinical Guidelines ? www.guidelines.gov ? www.cochrane.org ? Websites of national organizations, for example: ? www.ons.org ? www.americanheart.org ? www.strokeassociation.org Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 29 WARNING ? Searching with Google, Ask.com, Lycos, or other search engines is an inefficient use of time. It can be very difficult, especially for beginners, to judge the scholarly merit of information obtained this way. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 30 Librarian: Your New Best Friend ? Visit your university or institution’s library and ask a librarian for help accessing electronic databases. Librarians are experts and usually are glad to help. ? Learn to use at least two databases. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 31 How Far Back Should a Search Go? ? Usually 5 years is good, but some advanced projects may require searches that go back 10+ years. ? Although systematic reviews contain secondary sources, they can give a scholarly overview of a topic and are helpful in deciding how far back to search. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 32 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Are all the relevant concepts and variables included in the literature review? ? Does the search strategy include an appropriate and adequate number of databases and other resources to identify key published and unpublished research and theoretical sources? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 33 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Are both theoretical and research literature included? ? Is there an appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework that guides the development of the research study? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 34 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Are primary sources mainly used? ? What gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge does the literature review uncover? ? Does the literature review build on earlier studies? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 35 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Does the summary of each reviewed study reflect the essential components of the study design? ? Type and size of sample ? Reliability and validity of instrumentsNursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence ? Consistency of data collection procedures ? Appropriate data analysis ? Identification of limitations Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 36 Critiquing the Literature Review ? The critique of each reviewed study should include ? Strengths ? Weaknesses ? Limitations of the design ? Conflicts ? Gaps in information Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 37 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Does the synthesis summary follow a logical sequence that presents the overall strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed studies and arrive at a logical conclusion? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 38 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Is the literature review presented in an organized format that flows logically? ? The literature review should clearly outline the need for the particular research study or evidence-based practice project. ? Does the literature review follow the proposed purpose of the research study or evidence-based practice project? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 39 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Does the literature review generate research questions or hypotheses or answer a clinical question? HELPFUL HINT: ? Making a table using critical appraisal criteria is a helpful way to organize information. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 40 Which source provides the most information on evidence-based practice? A. CINAHL B. MEDLINE C. PsycINFO D. Cochrane Systematic Review Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 41 A nurse researcher finds four useful resources. What is an appropriate next action? A. Decide whether the four resources provide a strong enough base for the topic. B. Review the resources in the articles. C. Talk to the librarian. D. Expand the topic. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 42 The author of the nursing theory on which you are basing a review is in attendance at a social function. What might you do next? A. Introduce yourself and ask a few questions about your topic. B. Introduce yourself and ask for an appointment at a later date. C. Listen on the fringe of the discussion. D. Realize that this is a social function and do not talk “business.” Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 43 CHAPTER 17 Understanding Research Findings Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Discuss the difference between the “Results” section of a study and the “Discussion” section ? Identify the format of the “Results” section ? Determine whether both statistically supported and statistically unsupported findings are discussed LEARNING OUTCOMES 2 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Determine whether the results are objectively reported ? Describe how tables and figures are used in a research report ? List the criteria of a meaningful table ? Identify the format and components of the “Discussion” section LEARNING OUTCOMES 3 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more
Enjoy affordable prices and lifetime discounts
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Order Now Order in Chat

Start off on the right foot this semester. Get expert-written solutions at a 20% discount