Reflection on learning 06 /09/2021
Leonard1988
Reflectiononlearningweek1to7.docWeek 1: Appraising Qualitative Research
6161 unread replies.7676 replies.
Download the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal Tool and the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool located in Student Resource Center located in "Project & Practicum Resources."
Select one of the eight practice problems that burden the overall health of the United States. Conduct a library search for one qualitative research study addressing this problem. Appraise the qualitative research study using the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal Tool.
After appraising and determining the Level of Evidence and Grade of Quality for your selected qualitative study, summarize your findings. Transfer your findings to the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool. Complete each column including specific details about the qualitative study.
Include your completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool and your qualitative research study as an attachment with your initial post. Also, include a permalink for your selected qualitative research study with your initial discussion post. Confirm the link allows access to the full-text study article. Our faculty team will review both your research study and Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool and provide guidance.
Analyze the evidence summary of the selected qualitative research study to address the following.
· Does the research design answer the research question? Explain your rationale.
· Were the study sample participants representative? Why or why not?
· Compare and contrast the study limitations in this study.
· Based on this evidence summary, would you consider this qualitative research study as support for your selected practice problem? Explain your rationale.
Please review the Graduate Discussion Grading Guidelines and Rubric (Links to an external site.) for complete discussion requirements.
Week 1
Appraising Qualitative Research
Leonard Einstein Institution Application of Analytic Methods II Marianne Olson 05/04/2021
Appraising Qualitative Research
Fink et al. (2019) carried out a qualitative study to determine the problems patients face after being diagnosed with T2DM. According to the author, the ailment is one of the significant public health challenges that many countries globally grapple with; hence, it should be addressed adequately. The research design incorporated in the study satisfactorily answers the research question because it highlights some of the challenges that patients with the condition encounter. Some of the problems it mentions include coping with and manage the intricacies involved in living with the illness (Fink et al., 2019). It also analyzes acquiring adequate knowledge on managing the condition and following medical practitioners’ guidelines as significant issues that concern them.
The study sample is not representative. Although it included individuals from both genders, it did not consider other diversities inherent in the population, such as cultural, ethnic, and age differences. The primary limitation that is noted in the article is the use of ailing individuals from one nationality. According to the write-up, no individuals from other ethnicities could be incorporated into the research (Fink et al., 2019). However, in-depth scrutiny of the article shows another significant limitation that has not been documented. The study encapsulated only 19 participants, which is small to represent the entire population. According to Sim et al. (2018), incorporating many participants is essential in qualitative research to ensure that the compiled content is reliable. It increases the validity of the results of the investigation. Based on the evidence compiled from the research, the study highlights the challenges that T2DM patients in one region face. However, it cannot be used to represent the entire population. This is because of the limited number of participants and failure to consider the diversity present in the ailing individuals (Sherif, 2018). The omissions make the compiled content biased because it provides content based on the perspectives of one group of individuals.
References Fink, A., Fach, E. M., & Schröder, S. L. (2019). ‘Learning to shape life’–a qualitative study on the challenges posed by a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus type 2. International journal for equity in health, 18(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-0924-3 Sherif, V. (2018, March). Evaluating preexisting qualitative research data for secondary analysis. In Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research (Vol. 19, No. 2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-19.2.2821 Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori?. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(5), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643
Week 2: Appraising Quantitative Research
6565 unread replies.8383 replies.
Download the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal Tool and the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool located in Student Resource Center located in "Project & Practicum Resources."
Select one of the eight practice problems that burden the overall health of the United States. Conduct a library search for one quantitative research study addressing this problem. Appraise the quantitative research study using the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal Tool.
After appraising and determining the Level of Evidence and Grade of Quality for your selected quantitative study, summarize your findings. Transfer your findings to the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool. Complete each column including specific details about the quantitative study.
Include your completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool and your quantitative research study as an attachment with your initial post. Also, include a permalink for your selected quantitative research study with your initial discussion post. Confirm the link allows access to the full-text study article. Our faculty team will review both your research study and Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool and provide guidance.
Analyze the evidence summary of the selected quantitative research study to address the following.
· Does the research design answer the research question? Explain your rationale.
· Were the study sample participants representative? Why or why not?
· Compare and contrast the study limitations in this study.
· Based on this evidence summary, would you consider this quantitative research study as support for your selected practice problem? Explain your rationale.
Please review the Graduate Discussion Grading Guidelines and Rubric (Links to an external site.) for complete discussion requirements.
Week 2
Appraising Quantitative Research
Leonard Einstein Chamberlain University 05/11/2021 Wijayanti et al. (2019) investigated the impact that peers education on self-care among patients with diabetes mellitus. The study defined self-care as the promotion of activities that are based on one’s conscious and deliberate acts that an individual undertakes in to ensure they achieve the needs of monitoring their life, well-being, and health in accordance to their state of illness and health. The study design was used as a quantitative research methodology that incorporated a quasi-experimental research design that employed a pre-test and a post-test control group. The study used a sample of 21 patients that has Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the healthcare facility. Only the patients that met the inclusion criteria and exclusion in the study were chosen as study participants for this particular study. The study used a purposive sampling procedure to choose the study participants. The data in the study was collected using a self-care diabetes questionnaire that had 9 categories of questions. The research question that was used in this study was aimed to identify the effect of self-care education on patients with Diabetes Mellitus. The research design that was used answered the research question satisfactorily. It clearly highlights the effects of peer education by the nurses on self-care for patients with diabetes mellitus. Since the study used a quasi-experimental research design, the effects of peer education on self-care were illustrated by comparing the treatment group to the control group. The study sample was representative of the population. Although the research used a small number of participants, 21 participants, the research methodology and sampling technique that was used increased the ability of the small sample that was used to represent the population. Additionally, the aim of the research, in this case, did not require to include the diversities inherent in a population. Only the effects of peer education on self-care among the patients with diabetes mellitus were investigated. Purposive sampling was used to ensure that the data that was used was manageable (Etikan & Bala, 2017). Thus, the participants of the study presented a clear picture of how peer education on self-care among patients with diabetes mellitus is effective. Although the study participants were representative, more participants would have increased the statistical power of the study. Thus, one of the limitations that may be identified in this case is the use of a small sample size. Larger sample size would have increased the statistical power of the study. Based on the evidence of the study, the study accurately captured the effect of peer education on self-care among patients with diabetes mellitus. Thus, I would consider this quantitative research study to support the practice problem. That is because the study would be significant in identifying a way that may be used to promote the quality of life among patients with diabetes mellitus (Michael Hillmer et al., 2017).
References
Etikan, I., & Bala, K. (2017). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal, 5(6), 00149.
Michael Hillmer, Guillermo A. Sandoval, James A. Elliott, Meera Jain, Tiffany Barker, Amy Prisniak, Stoni Astley, & Laura Rosella. (2017). Diabetes risk reduction in primary care: Evaluation of the Ontario Primary Care Diabetes Prevention Program. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 108(2), e176–e184. https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.108.5287
Wijayanti, D., Sujianto, U., & Juniarto, A. (2019). Effect of Peer Education on Self Care Patients Diabetes Mellitus in RSUD Panembahan Senopati Bantul Yogyakarta. Jurnal Ners Dan Kebidanan Indonesia, 6(3), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.21927/jnki.2018.6(3).7-12
This is a graded discussion: 50 points possible
due May 23
Week 3: Appraising Systematic Reviews
5050 unread replies.7272 replies.
Download the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal Tool and the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool located in Student Resource Center located in "Project & Practicum Resources."
Select one of the eight practice problems that burden the overall health of the United States. Conduct a library search for one systematic review (without meta-analysis; with meta-analysis; meta-synthesis) addressing this problem. Appraise the systematic review using the Johns Hopkins Research Evidence Appraisal Tool.
After appraising and determining the Level of Evidence and Grade of Quality for your selected systematic review, summarize your findings. Transfer your findings to the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool. Complete each column including specific details about the systematic review.
Include your completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool and your systematic review as an attachment with your initial post. Also, include a permalink for your selected systematic review with your initial discussion post. Confirm the link allows access to the full-text study article. Our faculty team will review both your research study and Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool and provide guidance.
Analyze the evidence summary of the selected systematic review to address the following.
· Does the research design answer the research question? Explain your rationale.
· Were the study sample participants representative? Why or why not?
· Compare and contrast the study limitations in this study.
· Based on this evidence summary, would you consider this systematic review as support for your selected practice problem? Explain your rationale.
Please review the Graduate Discussion Grading Guidelines and Rubric (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.) for complete discussion requirements.
Week 3
Appraising Systematic Review
Leonard Einstein Chamberlain University Marianne Olson 05/16/2021
This study is a systematic review of literature from 28 studies that were identified. The review was conducted from longitudinal studies that had been done earlier. It aims at investigating the impact of physical activity and the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus considering the dose-response meta-analysis. Only observational studies were used in this case. Thus, both qualitative and quantitative studies were used in this systematic review. The research design that was used in this case was effective in answering the research question. In this case, the research question of the systematic study was to identify the dose-response relationship between physical activity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The results indicated that there was a non-linear relationship to type two diabetes among the people who take part in physical activities relative to the inactive individuals (Smith et al., 2016). Thus, the dose-response relationship was greater for higher intensity physical activity and vice versa. Since the results of the study answer the research question, it is correct to say that the research design that is used in this case answers the research questions.
In this case, since it is a systematic review meta-analysis, previous research studies are reviewed to identify the trends. However, the research papers that were used were representative as they resulted in the desired results. Additionally, to ensure that the research studies that were used in the systematic review were the desired research studies, the studies that were chosen had to fulfill the eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria in this study included studies that included individual with diabetes mellitus at baseline, those that reported RRs, HRs, or ORs for incidence of diabetes mellitus, those that followed a cohort of adults, and those that ascertained levels of leisure-time physical activity or total physical activity at the baseline. The studies that were excluded were those that duplicated data, those that used measures of fitness as an exposure, studies with insufficient details about the topic, and studies that have physical activity as a dichotomous variable (Connelly, 2020). That indicates that the study only used previous studies that had enough data thus indicating that they were a representative.
Although no limitation was identified in the study, some limitations can be cited. The first limitation was the lengthy process of data extraction and exposure harmonization. Since the study used different studies that had reported their results and data differently, there was a need to harmonize the data. Thus, it was a challenging process although, in the long run, the data was successfully harmonized. This systematic review supports the selected practice question effectively. Based on the evidence of the study, the study accurately captured the dose-response relationship between physical activity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. among patients with diabetes mellitus (Calvo et al., 2016). Thus, I would consider this systematic review study to support the practice problem. That is because the study would be significant in identifying the dose-response relationship between physical activity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The study identified that the dose-response relationship was greater for higher intensity physical activity and vice versa. References
Calvo, N., Ramos, P., Montserrat, S., Guasch, E., Coll-Vinent, B., Domenech, M., ... & Mont, L. (2016). Emerging risk factors and the dose–response relationship between physical activity and lone atrial fibrillation: a prospective case–control study. Ep Europace, 18(1), 57-63.
Connelly, L. M. (2020). Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Medsurg Nursing, 29(2), 125-116.
Smith, A., Crippa, A., Woodcock, J., & Brage, S. (2016). Physical activity and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Diabetologia, 59(12), 2527–2545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-016-4079-0
Week 4: Analyzing Descriptive Statistics
5353 unread replies.6262 replies.
As a practice scholar, you are searching for evidence to translate into practice. In your review of evidence, you locate a quantitative descriptive research study as possible evidence to support a practice change. You notice the sample of this study includes 200 participants and is not normally distributed. Reflect upon this scenario to address the following.
· What statistical procedure is needed to determine an effective sample size to make a reasonable conclusion? Explain your rationale.
· Reading through the study, you observe that the researcher used a chi-square analysis to analyze nominal and ordinal data. Is this the appropriate level of statistical analysis to answer the research question? Explain your rationale.
· Reading further, the researcher reports that the p-level led her to conclude that the null hypothesis was rejected. In your critique of the study, you determine that the null hypothesis is true. Do these findings impact your decision about whether to use this evidence to inform practice change? Why or why not?
Please review the Graduate Discussion Grading Guidelines and Rubric (Links to an external site.) for complete discussion requirements.
Week 4
Analyzing Descriptive Statistics
Leonard Einstein
Chamberlain University
Marianne Olson
5/23/2021
A sample is a part of a population that helps to draw inferences about a population. It is essential to use the sample size to save on the time that is used in conducting a study. When choosing the sample size, it is essential to ensure that the sample size is representative of the population that is being studied. One of the challenges that are faced when the selected sample size is selecting the appropriate sample size to promote the validity of a study. The sample size should not be too large as it will result in the wastage of resources. Consequently, it should not be too small as it will not yield valid results (Lu et al., 2017). There is no specific rule of thumb that may be used when conducting a study. When determining the sample size in a descriptive statistics research study, the sample size is based on the confidence intervals. The first step is used in determining the confidence interval that will be used in the study. After the confidence interval is identified, the samples that are selected should lie within the internal range of the confidence intervals. That indicates that the sample size selected in this case will be valid thus promoting valid results from the study.
The use of the chi-square analysis is not the appropriate level of statistical analysis to answer the research question. Chi-square is a statistical test that is used to test for independence and relationships in categorical data. The null hypothesis in a chi-square is used to test that there is no significant relationship that exists on the categorical variables in the population (Connelly, 2019). That indicates that they should be independent. The chi-square test is thus used to determine the goodness of fit and the independence of data. However, the chi-square test is only used in qualitative studies. Since the study in question is a quantitative descriptive analysis study, the chi-square is not an effective and suitable analysis tool to be used in this case.
The p-level is a level of statistical significance that is often expressed as a p-value between 0 and 1. A smaller p-value indicates stronger evidence that the null hypothesis should be rejected. The study used the p-level to reject the null hypothesis. That indicates that according to the p-level, there was a significant relationship between the variables. However, after the critique of the study, it is identified that the null hypothesis is true. That portrays a type I error (Kuranga et al., 2020). That indicates that there is no significant relationship between the variables in the study. Such information impacts the decision about whether to use the study as evidence to inform the practice change. That is because the study has the wrong results. That indicates that the study is not valid as it portrays the wrong results to the topic being studied. Thus, using the study would provide misleading information to the practice being supported. When looking for evidence to be used to inform the practice, one of the requirements that are vetted to identify whether a study fits to be evidence is the validity of the study. In this case, the study in question is not valid since it portrays the wrong results thus indicating that it is erroneous. Erroneous results indicate that the recommendations given in the study are also wrong.
References
Connelly, L. (2019). Chi-square test. Medsurg Nursing, 28(2), 127-127.
Kuranga, J. O., Ayinde, K., & Solomon, G. S. (2020). Empirical Investigation of Type 1 Error Rate of Some Normality Test Statistics. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(4).
Lu, D., Weljie, A., de Leon, A. R., McConnell, Y., Bathe, O. F., & Kopciuk, K. (2017). Performance of variable selection methods using stability-based selection. BMC research notes, 10(1), 1-10.
Week 5: Analyzing Parametric Statistics
1818 unread replies.5252 replies.
As a practice scholar, you are searching for evidence to translate into practice. In your review of evidence, you locate a quasi-experimental research study as possible evidence to support a practice change. You notice that the study aims to make a prediction that relates to correlation between study variables. The study sample size is large and normally distributed. Reflect upon this scenario to address the following.
· In your appraisal of the evidence, you note that an independent variable is not present and that a Spearman's ranked correlation is used to analyze data. Is this the correct level of correlational analysis? Explain your rationale.
· Are association and correlational analysis equivalent in determining relationships between variables?
· Do these findings impact your decision about whether to use this evidence to inform practice change? Why or why not?
Please review the Graduate Discussion Grading Guidelines and Rubric (Links to an external site.) for complete discussion requirements.
Week 5
Analyzing Parametric Statistics
Leonard Einstein
Chamberlain University
Marianne Olson
06/02/2021
During the appraisal of the research, it is noted that the independent variable is not present. Moreover, Spearman’s ranked correlation is used to analyze the data. A quasi-experimental research study involves the manipulation of an independent variable without randomly assigning the participants to conditions or order of conditions. That indicates that a quasi-experiment has higher internal validity than other correlational studies but a lower internal validity than the true experiments. However, the correlation in this quasi-experimental research is not the correct level of correlational analysis. That is because there is no independent variable that is identified in the study. Thus the correlation analysis that has been made in the study is not related to the independent variable as it should be in a quasi-experimental research study. Moreover, the quasi-experimental research study uses a Spearman’s ranked correlation. Spearman’s ranked correlation is a non-parametric measure of the direction and strength of association that exists between two variables measures on at least the ordinal scale (Cavallo, 2020). However, the quasi-experimental research study is analyzing parametric statistics. That indicates that since Spearman’s ranked correlation is used to analyze non-parametric statistics, then the measure is not supposed to be used in this case. And the fact that it has been used indicates that the correct level of correlation analysis has not been identified in this case study.
The association and correlation analysis are not equivalent in determining the relationships between variables. Although the two terms are similar, they have different meanings in statistics and they can be used interchangeably by mistake. Hat would result in portraying a different meaning rather than the intended one. Correlation analysis explores the association that two or more variables have and then makes inferences about the strength of their relationship. Thus, correlation analysis measures whether when one variable is increased or decrease, the other variable will also increase or decrease using the same factor or a factor that is near the factor that was used to increase or decrease the first variable. Thus, depending on the strength of the relationship between two variables, the correlation may be positive or negative (Sapra & Saluja, 2021). If the correlation is positive, that indicates that when a variable fluctuates in one direction, the other variable will fluctuate in the same direction. A negative correlation indicates that when a number fluctuates in a certain direction, the other variable will fluctuate in the other direction.
On the other hand, association refers to the relationship between two variables. Thus, it has less strict definitions and it may be used to explain a lot of scenarios. For instance, it is used to show a group of variables with the same or common cause. It may also be used to show the connection between two things. That indicates that whereas correlation is used to refer to the linear relationship between two or more variables, the association is used to show the relationship between two variables.
The findings of this study impact my decision on whether to use or not use this evidence. In this case, the results of the study are incorrect since the wrong statistical methods of data analysis have been used. When the results are wrong, it indicates that even the recommendations that have been given are also wrong. Thus, using the study as a source of evidence would be using the wrong results thus it would be a piece of misleading evidence (Kane, 2020). Moreover, when choosing a study to be used as evidence, it is essential to ensure that it is valid. In this case, the study that has been identified is not valid. Thus, in should not be chosen.
Reference
Cavallo, B. (2020). Functional relations and Spearman correlation between consistency indices. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 71(2), 301-311.
Kane, M. (2020). Validity studies commentary. Educational Assessment, 25(1), 83-89.
Sapra, R. L., & Saluja, S. (2021). Understanding statistical association and correlation. Current Medicine Research and Practice, 11(1), 31.
Week 6: Evidence Synthesis
1212 unread replies.2121 replies.
Critique the below evidence synthesis exemplar to address the following.
Patient falls with injury and fall prevention remain complex phenomena in the acute care setting as well as a major challenge for healthcare professionals (Gygax Spicer, 2017). Patient falls are considered one of the leading adverse events occurring in acute care settings such as hospitals and nursing homes, with the detrimental impact to the patient ranging from mild to severe bruising, fractures, trauma, and even death (de Medeiros Araújo et al., 2017). Falls are common phenomena in older adults, with roughly one out of three people age 65 years and older who suffers from at least one fall per year due to multiple factors including environmental, social, and physiological factors either alone or in conjunction (Gygax Spicer, 2017). The etiology is that patients are attempting to get out of bed without assistance from nursing staff. Several of the causative factors include illness, impulsiveness, urgency, medications, or being in an unfamiliar environment. Lastly, there has been an increase in the amount of turnover in staffing, thus reducing the amount of available nursing staff in the practice setting.
Does the author clearly identify the scope of the evidence synthesis? Explain your rationale.
· Are strong paraphrased sentences included that are supported by contemporary sources of research evidence? Explain your rationale.
· Are the facts related to the practice problem presented in an objective manner? Explain your rationale.
· Does the author use sources to support ideas and claims, and not the other way around? Explain your rationale.
· Based on your appraisal, is this exemplar a true synthesis of the evidence? Or is it a summary of the evidence? Explain your rationale.
Please review the Graduate Discussion Grading Guidelines and Rubric (Links to an external site.) for complete discussion requirements.
Week 6 Discussion: Evidence Synthesis
Leonard Einstein
Chamberlain University
Marianne Olson
06/07/2021
Evidence synthesis is essential when writing academic papers and research. This discussion will analyze and evaluate an excerpt that has been provided to identify whether evidence synthesis was clearly highlighted in the excerpt.
In the excerpt that has been provided, The author clearly identifies the scope of the evidence synthesis. It is attributed to the aggregation of available information using well-defined and transparent methods to summarize, search, and interpret the body of literature provided. The author of the literature identifies two studies that will be used as evidence in his work. The studies are synthesized effectively into the work making it well-supported by the evidence.
In the work of literature, there are strong paraphrased sentences that are used. The strong paraphrased sentences are supported by the sources of the research evidence. In the excerpt that has been provided, there are three paraphrased sentences from the sources. The first sentence that is paraphrased is “Patient falls with injury and fall prevention remain complex phenomena in the acute care setting as well as a major challenge for healthcare professionals.” The sentence is paraphrased from a study by Gygax Spicer (2017). The study by Gygax researches the campaign to reduce patient falls with injuries in the acute care setting. That indicates that the research used in this case is relevant to the topic that is being analyzed in the work of literature thus making it a good source to be used.
The second paraphrased sentence in the work of literature is “Patient falls are considered one of the leading adverse events occurring in acute care settings such as hospitals and nursing homes, with the detrimental impact to the patient ranging from mild to severe bruising, fractures, trauma, and even death.” This sentence is paraphrased from a study by de Medeiros Araujo et al., 2017). The study investigates the factors of the risks of falling in a healthcare facility. Thus, the study is relevant to the topic that is being studied. The third paraphrased sentence in the work of literature is “Falls are common phenomena in older adults, with roughly one out of three people age 65 years and older who suffers from at least one fall per year due to multiple factors including environmental, social, and physiological factors either alone or in conjunction.” The sentence is paraphrased from Gygax Spicer (2017). The paraphrased sentences are strong as they portray the use of evidence in the work of literature in this case.
An objective manner of presenting the facts related to the practice indicates that the facts should be presented in an unbiased form. In the excerpt, the data is presented objectively. Evidence is used to back up the data that is used in the except. That indicates that the facts are not manipulated and thus there as presented as retrieved from the sources of evidence indicating they are unbiased.
The author uses the sources to support the claims and ideas made and not the other way round. The excerpt discusses the issue of patient falls and fall prevention. The sources of evidence that have been used support the topic under discussion. In some instances, the sources are used to provide more information about the topic being discussed. That reflects that the evidence is used to prove the claims made in the work of literature.
At the beginning of the excerpt, it is a summary of the evidence. That is because the first three sentences that are used are paraphrased from two different studies on the topic (Houghtonet al., 2017). Towards the end of the excerpt, the author makes his claims. Thus, although evidence is well used in this case, the excerpt is not a true synthesis of the evidence.
References
Alves Moura, L., de Medeiros Araújo, JN, Nunes de Lima Fernandes, AP, Fontenele Lima de Carvalho, RE, Pereira Santos, VE, Ferreira Júnior, MA, & Fortes Vitor, A. (2017). Risk factors for falls in the elderly in the hospital environment. Cuban Journal of Nursing , 33 (3).
Gygax Spicer, J. (2017). The Got-A-Minute Campaign to Reduce Patient Falls with Injury in an Acute Care Setting. MedSurg Nursing, 26(5).
Houghton, C., Murphy, K., Meehan, B., Thomas, J., Brooker, D., & Casey, D. (2017). From screening to synthesis: using nvivo to enhance transparency in qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of clinical nursing, 26(5-6), 873-881.
Week 7: PICOT Formulation
No unread replies.11 reply.
As a practice scholar, the interdisciplinary team you are leading develops the below two practice questions in PICOT format to drive practice change. Select one of the practice questions and respond to the directions and discussion questions.
Practice Question 1: Does motivational interviewing during a regularly scheduled well-child visit for children between 5-19 years with a BMI of 30 and above as compared to practice as usual, influence BMI, BP, quality of life, and daily physical activity over 8-10 weeks?
· Identify the PICOT elements.
· What are key search terms identified in the practice question?
Conduct a library search using these search terms to locate a research study addressing this practice problem and consider the following.
· What is the research-evidence based intervention addressed in the study?
· What is the quantifiable outcome(s)? How will the outcome(s) be measured? What potential reliable and valid measurements/tools may be used to measure this quantifiable data?
· Is this practice question answerable within 8-10 weeks? Why or why not?
Practice Question 2: In the adult critical care population, does a research-based skin care integrity bundle, compared to standard care, influence the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injuries over an 8-10 week time period?
· Identify the PICOT elements.
· What are key search terms identified in the practice question?
Conduct a library search using these search terms to locate a research study addressing this practice problem and consider the following.
· What is the research-evidence based intervention in the study?
· What is the quantifiable outcome(s)? How will the outcome(s) be measured? What potential reliable and valid measurements/tools may be used to measure this quantifiable data?
· Is this practice question answerable within 8-10 weeks? Why or why not?
PLEASE NOTE: The requirements for the Week 7 discussion are that you respond to one of the practice questions.
Please review the Graduate Discussion Grading Guidelines and Rubric (Links to an external site.) for complete discussion requirements.
Week 7
Discussion
Student Name
Institution
Instructor
Date
In this discussion, the second PICOT question will be evaluated. PICOT indicates the elements of a clinical research question which show the patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time (Lira et al., 2019).
In this case, the patients identified by the PICOT question are the adult population in critical care. The intervention being used in this case is a research-based skincare integrity bundle. The comparison is standard care. The outcome of the incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injuries. Finally, the time period is 8 to 10 weeks.
The key search terms that may be used when searching a research study that addressed the issue are research-based care integrity bundle, hospital-acquired pressure injuries, adult critical care population, and 8 to 10 week period. The key terms identified will ensure that the research study that has been identified is relevant to the PICOT question in question.
After searching in the school library, the best peer-reviewed article to answer the PICOT question was identified. The study was Preventing pressure injury in nursing homes: developing a care bundle using the Behaviour Change Wheel. In the study, an evidence-informed and research-based pressure injury prevention are bundle was formulated. To develop the care bundle, the first step that was taken was to identify the research-based and evidence-informed pressure injury prevention practices that may be used by the healthcare practitioners. Thus, from this step, a potential of the target behaviors that would be include was identified. In the study, a four hour-workshop was attended by 13 healthcare practitioners to identify the best research-based and evidence-informed pressure injury prevention that would be used in the case of the study (Lavallée et al., 2019). The method that was identified is the behavior change wheel method. The behavior change wheel would enable the healthcare practitioners to identify the best methods that would be used to care for the target population.
The outcomes of the study would be measured through the observations of the healthcare practitioners. According to the research, three elements were identified. The elements were repositioning, support surfaces, and skin inspection. The outcomes in the study would be measured through behavior change techniques such as demonstration of behavior, feedback on the outcome of the behavior from the patients, instruction on how to perform the behavior, social and environmental consequences, feedback on behavior, prompts/cues, and information on health consequences.
In the study, the reliable and valid measurements that would be used to measure the quantifiable data include the observation of the health practitioners. Additionally, information will be collected from the patients in terms of structured questions which aim at identifying how the patient feels (Edmiston & Leaper, 2017). That will enable the healthcare practitioners to identify the success of the method chosen in the study.
The practice question is answerable within 8 to 10 weeks. When converted to months, it represents two to two and a half months. That is enough time to use treatment alternatives to ensure that hospital-acquired pressure injuries are prevented. Within the period, the success and effectiveness of the method chosen may be established. Thus, the time period identified is enough time to answer the question. However, more time would be desirable to enable the researchers to come up with more accurate results.
References
Edmiston, C. E., & Leaper, D. (2017). Should preoperative showering or cleansing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) be part of the surgical care bundle to prevent surgical site infection? Journal of Infection Prevention, 18(6), 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757177417714873
Lavallée, J. F., Gray, T. A., Dumville, J. C., & Cullum, N. (2019). Preventing pressure injury in nursing homes: developing a care bundle using the Behaviour Change Wheel. BMJ Open, 9(6), e026639–e026639. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026639
Lira, R. P. C., & Rocha, E. M. (2019). PICOT: Imprescriptible items in a clinical research question. Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 82(2), 1-1.
