Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

AssignmentforFiona.docx

Home >Nursing homework help >Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Your quest to purchase a new car begins with an identification of the factors important to you. As you conduct a search of cars that rate high on those factors, you collect evidence and try to understand the extent of that evidence. A report that suggests a certain make and model of automobile has high mileage is encouraging. But who produced that report? How valid is it? How was the data collected, and what was the sample size?

In this Assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical inquiry by closely examining your PICO(T) question. You also begin to analyze the evidence you have collected.

To Prepare:

· Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.

· Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest you identified in Module 2 for the Assignment. This PICOT question will remain the same for the entire course.

· Use the key words from the PICO(T) question you developed and search at least four different databases in the Walden Library. Identify at least four relevant systematic reviews or other filtered high-level evidence, which includes meta-analyses, critically-appraised topics (evidence syntheses), critically-appraised individual articles (article synopses). The evidence will not necessarily address all the elements of your PICO(T) question, so select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available.

· Reflect on the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 2: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews

Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:

· Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.

· Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.

· Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.

· Provide APA citations of the four relevant peer-reviewed articles at the systematic-reviews level related to your research question. If there are no systematic review level articles or meta-analysis on your topic, then use the highest level of evidence peer reviewed article.

· Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.

By Day 7 of Week 5

Rubric Detail

A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.

Content

Top of Form

Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

· Grid View

· List View

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following: <br *The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. <br *A brief statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest. <br *A brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. <br *A brief description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.</br </br </br </br

Points Range:81 (81.00%) - 90 (90.00%)

The response accurately and clearly provides a full citation of each article in APA format. The responses accurately and thoroughly explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a detailed explanation of the ethics of research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the aims of the research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples. The responses accurately and clearly describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles and two or three course-specific resources.

Points Range:72 (72.00%) - 80 (80.00%)

The response accurately provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses accurately explain the selection of these peer-reviewed articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including an accurate explanation of ethics. The responses accurately describe the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. The responses accurately describe the research methodology used and type of methodology used with some examples. The responses accurately describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including an explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the selection of the peer-reviewed articles. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources.

Points Range:63 (63.00%) - 71 (71.00%)

The response inaccurately or vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including the explanation of the ethics. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the aims of the research of each article. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the research methodology used and the type of methodology used, with only some examples. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provided vaguely or inaccurately synthesize outside resources related to the selection of the articles. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.

Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 62 (62.00%)

The response inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format or is missing. The responses inaccurately & vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue, including the explanation of ethics of research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the aims of the research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the research methodology used, the type of methodology used with no examples present, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the strengths of each of the methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of the methodology, or they are missing. The responses provide a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources related to the selection of the articles and fail to integrate any resources to support the responses provided, or is missing.

Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria.

Points Range:5 (5.00%) - 5 (5.00%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria.

Points Range:4 (4.00%) - 4 (4.00%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive.

Points Range:3.5 (3.50%) - 3.5 (3.50%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 3 (3.00%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided.

Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.

Points Range:5 (5.00%) - 5 (5.00%)

Points Range:4 (4.00%) - 4 (4.00%)

Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Points Range:3.5 (3.50%) - 3.5 (3.50%)

Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

Points Range:0 (0.00%) - 3 (3.00%)

Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Feedback to Learner

Name:NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric

Bottom of Form