Essay 1000 words by 11/27/2020 at 6:00 pm please follow the rubric and template that I uploaded,please add references and citations
Idelcuba83
ReportPDF8.pdf
Submission Ide: 40020004-4f47-4adf-94e5-dffd97779b3e
96% SIMILARITY SCORE 1 CITATION ITEM 37 GRAMMAR ISSUES 0 FEEDBACK COMMENT Internet Source 0% Institution 96%
Ivis Perez Delgado
Research Critique Guideline Part 2.docx
Summary
1194 Words
Running head: RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINE PART 2 1
RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINE PART 2 2
Research Critique Guideline Part 2
Quantitative Articles
Article 1: Jansen, K. U., & Anderson, A. S. (2018). The role of vaccines in fighting
Student: Submitted to Grand Canyon UniversityResearch Critique Guideline Part 2
Ivis Perez Delgado
Grand Canyon University
11/27/2020
antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Human Vaccines &Immunotherapeutics, 14(9), 2142–2149.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6183139/
Article 2: Lee, C.-R., Cho, I. H., Jeong, B. C., & Lee, S. H. (2013). Strategies to minimize
antibiotic resistance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(9),
4274–4305. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799537/
Background
In summary,Jansen & Anderson (2018) examine the role of vaccines in curbing
Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) problem. The authors use a descriptive tool to examine the
historical use of various strategies that have been employed to manage AMR. The study
concludes that various types of vaccines including viral vaccines could be used to curb AMR.On
the other hand, Lee et al. (2013) aimed to establish the relationship between Antimicrobial
Stewardships Programs such as pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) and AMR.
The purpose statement of Jansen & Anderson (2018) research was to describe the drivers
of antibiotic use and subsequent development of AMR.Lee et al. (2013) on the other hand,
concentrated on determining the role of Antimicrobial Stewardships Programs such as
pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) in fighting AMR.
Jansen & Anderson (2018) problem is that AMR is associated with high morbidity and
mortality rates. Hence, there is an urgent need to find a clinical solution to this problem. Lee et
al. (2013) on the other hand is concerned that AMR reduces the effectiveness of the antibiotics,
which in turn affects the wellbeing of the society.
RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINE PART 2 3
Spelling mistake: &Immunotherapeutics
Use of whitespace before...: ,Jansen , Jansen
Passive voice: have been employed
on the other hand ...: On the other hand But
Spelling mistake: Stewardships Stewardship
Spelling mistake: pharmacodynamics
Spelling mistake: pharmacokinetic
on the other hand (...: on the other hand but
Spelling mistake: Stewardships Stewardship
Spelling mistake: pharmacodynamics
Spelling mistake: pharmacokinetic
on the other hand (...: on the other hand but
Spelling mistake: wellbeing well being
Spelling mistake: Stewardships Stewardship
Spelling mistake: pharmacodynamics
Spelling mistake: pharmacokinetic
Spelling mistake: Stewardships Stewardship
Spelling mistake: pharmacodynamics
Spelling mistake: pharmacokinetic
Spelling mistake: Stewardships Stewardship
Spelling mistake: pharmacodynamics
Spelling mistake: pharmacokinetic
Spelling mistake: tochronic to chronic
The significance of Jansen & Anderson’s (2018) research to the topic is that examine the
role of vaccines in curbing Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) problem hence the article seeks to
establish the solution of AMR concerning the effectiveness of antibiotics.Lee et al. (2013) article
is also important to the topic of study in that the authors establish a relationship between
Antimicrobial Stewardships Programs such as pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetic
(PK) and AMR.
The objective of Jansen & Anderson’s (2018) research is to examine the role of vaccines
in curbing Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) problem while that of Lee et al. (2013) to determine
the role of guidelines on various data for Antimicrobial Stewardships Programs such as
pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) can be used to curb the problem of microbial
resistance.
Concerning the research question, Jansen & Anderson’s (2018) study ought to answer the
question, How do vaccines help fight the battle against AMR?Lee et al. (2013) study on the other
side was concerned with responding to the question, how do Antimicrobial Stewardships
Programs such as pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) help fight AMR?
How do these two articles support the nurse practice issue you chose?
Jansen & Anderson’s (2018) study answers PICOT question by attempting to provide
solutions tochronic problem of AMR. The authors determine that various vaccines such as
especially viral vaccines could be used to eliminate the threat of AMR.Lee et al. (2013) study
RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINE PART 2 4
RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINE PART 2 5
relying on WHO articles which may be limited in number hence the study may lack diverse
perspectives concerning the area of study.Lee et al. (2013) study also has the benefit of utilizing
peer-reviewed articles in gathering information. The primary setback of this method is that it
lacks practical data method of collecting data hence the authors cannot not cross-reference the
findings found in secondary data thus chance of errors are high.
Results of Study
Spelling mistake: Stewardships Stewardship
Spelling mistake: ASPs Asps
Passive voice: vaccines should be used
assist, assistance (help): assist help
Spelling mistake: Stewardships Stewardship
on the other hand (...: on the other hand but
Spelling mistake: Stewardships Stewardship
Spelling mistake: pharmacodynamics
Spelling mistake: pharmacokinetic
accurate: accurate right
also answers the PICOT question by explain that collaborative efforts from the society including
those from nurses, patient and other organizations in the community can help eradicate AMR by
supporting between Antimicrobial Stewardships Programs (ASPs) which are the primarily
solution to the AMR problem.
Jansen & Anderson’s (2018) study provide different approaches to the AMR solution
compared to the one proposed in the PICOT Question. These authors propose that vaccines
should be used to deal with the problem of Antimicrobial resistance whereas the PICOT question
was concerned with practical management techniques such as formulating strategies that will the
overdoes or misuse of antibiotics that lead to AMR. However, Lee et al. (2013) approach to
solving the problem of AMR slightly resembles the solution provided in the PICOT question.
The authors maintain that collaborative efforts in the community can largely assist Antimicrobial
Stewardships Programs to manage the problem of AMR by teaching the community about the
possible causes of Antimicrobial problems. This technique is similar to the one proposed in the
PICOT Question that AMR can be managed primarily by using patient education to teach about
the causes of AMR.
Method of Study
Both Jansen & Anderson (2018) and Lee et al. (2013) studies employ a descriptive
analysis technique in examining their variables. They also both do not use sample but instead
secondary sources in collecting data. However, the two studies are different in their areas of
concentration. Jansen & Anderson (2018) is majorly concerned with publications on vaccines as
a method of managing AMR with the support of health institutions such as the World health
Organization (WHO). Lee et al. (2013) on the other hand is concerned with publications on the
role of Antimicrobial Stewardships Programs in managing the issue of AMR using data such as
diagnostic testing, pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK).
The benefit of Jansen & Anderson (2018) method of study is that it relies heavily on
peer-reviewed articles in gathering data hence the research is likely to gather accurate
information pertaining to the topic of investigation. However, the authors fall in the trap of
Jansen & Anderson (2018) found that various types of vaccines including viral vaccines
could be used to curb AMR. Lee et al. (2013) on the other hand found that Collaborative efforts
in the society could largely assist in supporting ASPs to manage microbial resistances.
The nursing implications of Jansen & Anderson (2018) study is that nurses are will have
the option to manage AMR using drugs. Therefore, nursing will have a simplified solution to the
problem without having the need to involve other stakeholders. The clinical implications of Lee
et al. (2013) study is that nursing will have to incorporate other stakeholders in findings solutions
to the clinical problem.
Outcomes Comparison
The anticipated outcomes of the PICOT question is that patient education on AMR will
largely assist in reducing cases of Antimicrobial resistance. Through education such as the need
to restrict patients in using antibiotics and teaching patients the importance of adhering the
antibiotic prescription, AMR problems will be solved effectively.
The anticipated outcomes of Jansen & Anderson (2018) study is that vaccines rather than
patient education will be the primary way of reducing AMR cases. Lee et al. (2013) study on the
hand anticipates that the inclusion of various stakeholders in finding a solution to AMR which is
different from the anticipated outcome of the PICOT Question.
RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINE PART 2 6
References
Jansen, K. U., & Anderson, A. S. (2018). The role of vaccines in fighting antimicrobial
resistance (AMR). Human Vaccines &Immunotherapeutics, 14(9), 2142–2149.
Lee, C.-R., Cho, I. H., Jeong, B. C., & Lee, S. H. (2013). Strategies to minimize antibiotic
resistance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(9),
4274–4305.
on the other hand (...: on the other hand but
assist, assistance (help): assist help
Spelling mistake: ASPs Asps
assist, assistance (help): assist help
