Research Critiques and PICOT Statement Final Draft by 12/11/2020 at 8 pm ,please use APA style ,1500 words ,follow the rubric and the template

Running head: RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINE PART 2 1

RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDELINE PART 2 5

Research Critique Guideline Part 2

Ivis Perez Delgado

Grand Canyon University

Research Critique Guideline Part 2

Quantitative Articles

Article 1: Jansen, K. U., & Anderson, A. S. (2018). The role of vaccines in fighting 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/

The article on“ The role of vaccines in fighting antimicrobial resistance (AMR)” by Jansen & Anderson (2018) majorly focuses on conducting an examination of the role of vaccines when it comes to fighting Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) issue. The authors of the article tend to utilize a descriptive tool to review the historical utilization of different approaches which has been employed in the management of AMR. The research study tends to conclude that different forms of vaccines such as viral vaccines may not be utilized to fight AMR. On the other end, the article “ Strategies to minimize antibiotic resistance” by Lee et al. (2013) tends to focus on developing a relationship between Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs include pharmacodynamics as well as pharmacokinetic as well as AMR. Both of the articles tend to focus on identifying the various aspects which contribute to causing AMR as well as the various programs which have been established to limit as well as curb the AMR.

The article by Jansen & Anderson (2018) also confirms that AMR is linked to a significant rate of mortality as well as morbidity. Thus, the need for offering a clinical solution to the AMR related issues is essential. The article by Lee at al. (2013) also tends to focus on how the AMR related issues contribute in limiting the effectiveness of antibiotic hence impact the health of the public. In regards to the research hypothesis, the study conducted by Jansen & Anderson (2018) tends to answer the research question on how vaccines tend to contribute to curbing the AMR battle. On the other hand, Lee et al.’s (2013) study tends to answer a research question on how antimicrobial Stewardships Programs contribute to combating AMR.

The article by Jansen & Anderson (2018) tends to answer the PICOT question by trying to offer solutions related to chronic issues that are influenced by AMR. Authors of the study tend to determine that different vaccines such as viral vaccines may be utilized to reduce the AMR risk factor. The study by Lee et al. (2013) also tends to answer the PICOT question by explaining how collaborative efforts from nurses, patients, and the public may aid in limiting AMR through the implementation of Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) which are the fundamental solution for the AMR issue. 

Also, the article by Jansen & Anderson (2018) also offers diverse strategies towards the establishment of AMR solutions in comparison to the proposed Picot Question. The authors of the article provide a proposal that vaccines are essential aspects for combating the AMR issues, whereas the PICOT question was major focuses on providing a practical management method which involves the formulation of approaches which tend to control an overdose or misuse of antibiotic usage which results to AMR. On the other hand, the article by Lee et al. (2013) tends to utilize an approach that is slightly similar to the PICOT approach in resolving the AMR issue. Authors of the article tend to maintain that a collaborative effort within the community may contribute to significantly aid the community to effectively control the AMR issues through Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs through educating the society regarding the potential causes of AMR issues. The approach tends to be quite similar to the PICOT question which asserts that AMR issues may be controlled fundamentally through the utilization of patient education regarding the AMR causes. 

Articles by Jansen & Anderson (2018) and Lee et al. (2013) have implemented the descriptive analysis technique to be able to effectively review the various variables. Additionally, both of the research articles do not utilize any form of sample population but rather they tend to utilize secondary sources in their data collection. Moreover, both of the research articles tend to be diverse in their areas of concentration.

An advantage of the study approach utilized by Jansen & Anderson (2018) is that it tends to be dependent on peer-reviewed articles in collecting the necessary data and as a result, the study is likely to attain accurate information regarding the subject on focus. However, a significant limitation regarding the authors of the article is that they are more dependent on WHO articles which are quite limited, and as a result, the research study tends to lack a diverse perspective regarding the subject under investigation. On the other hand, a significant benefit of the research approach utilized by Lee et al. (2013) is that it depended on peer-reviewed articles to achieve its research data hence being in a position to achieve accurate information. However, a major limitation of this research study is it tends to lack any form of practical data collection approach which leads to the inability for the researchers to cross-reference their results in their secondary findings hence providing significant room for errors to occur.

The study by Jansen & Anderson (2018) identified that different forms of vaccine such as viral vaccines may be utilized to prevent the issues of AMR from occurring. Lee et al. (2013), research also pointed out that collaboration within the community has major benefits in promoting ASPs support to be able to manage the microbial related resistances. An implication was also attained from Jansen & Anderson (2018) that the nursing practitioners are able to control AMR by the usage of vaccines. This approach tends to simplify the AMR solution by not getting the stakeholder involved. Also, an implication attained for Lee et al. (2013) indicates that the nursing practice needs to work in collaboration with the healthcare stakeholders to be in a position to point out the potential solutions which are linked to health care related issues.

Some of the anticipated results of the PICOT Question is that educating the patients regarding AMR related issues tends to significantly aid in reducing the potential causes of AMR. Provision of education to patients allows the patient population to attain an adequate understanding regarding the essentialness of adhering to the prescription provided for antibiotics and as a result limiting the AMR-related issues. An anticipation outcome for the article by Jansen & Anderson (2018) is that vaccines are the fundamental approach for limiting AMR issues compared to patient education. However, the anticipated outcome for the article by Lee et al. (2013) is that the inclusion of stakeholder in developing a solution for a clinical issue tends to be a positive impact on the public 

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.