Appraisal of a systematic review using the John Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Research Evidence Appraisal Tool.

sampleofwaytocompleteJHISfrompreviusweek.docx

Home >Nursing homework help >Appraisal of a systematic review using the John Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Research Evidence Appraisal Tool.

Practice Question:

Date:

Article Number	Author and Date	Evidence Type	Sample, Sample Size, Setting	Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question	Observable Measures	Limitations	Evidence Level, Quality
1	Vuong, K., Uebel, K., Agaliotis, M., Jun, S., Taggart, J., Suchy, S., Liauw, W., Chin, M., Webber, K., & Harris, M. (2020). Assessing suitability for long-term colorectal cancer shared care: a scenario-based qualitative study. BMC Family Practice, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01311-w Permalink: https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-020-01311-w Database: CINAHL	Evidence: Qualitative Type: Thematic analysis using an inductive approach. Purpose: Use patient scenarios to explore views on patient suitability for long-term colorectal cancer shared care across the risk spectrum from survivors, general practitioners, and specialists. Objectives: To discover new concepts and themes as they pertain to suitable matches between patients and providers	Sample: Colorectal cancer survivors, general practitioners, cancer specialists of both genders and different age groups Colorectal cancer survivors had completed all treatment Cancer specialist included oncologists, surgeons, and nurse coordinators with a specialty in colorectal cancer All general practitioners and specialist had to be active in their medical practice Sample Size: 25 total participants: 10 Colorectal cancer survivors 6 General Practitioners 9 Specialists Setting: In the practitioner’s office or in the homes of the selected participants Data Saturation Explanation: Yes · N/A	Importance of practicing difficult/high-stress situations and how simulation can be incorporated Utilizing simulation post effective treatment Simulation relieves/reduces anxiety and allows higher levels of confidence in real life situations and settings This has shown that simulation can be utilized from start to finish across the healthcare continuum	Direct examples of survey question results/answers Examples of the survey questions and answers Themes and categories provided for information sought to be obtained through the interviews Utilization of direct quotes from participants	Sample size was too small Sample size did not represent those in different locales (rural and remote settings) Scenarios were used across the risk spectrum instead of prospective real-world clinical data	Evidence Level: III Quality: A
2	Vrinten, C., Gallagher, A., Waller, J., & Marlow, L. (2019). Cancer stigma and cancer screening attendance: a population-based survey in England. BMC Cancer, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5787-x Permalink: https://chamberlain-on-worldcat-org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/oclc/8291738930 Database: EBSCOhost	Evidence: Quantitative Type: Cross-sectional analysis Purpose: Use home-based interviews to examine the association between cancer stigma and having been screened as recommended versus not Objectives: Explore the prevalence and socio-demographic patterning of cancer stigma in the general population and the association with cancer screening attendance	Sample: Adults 18-70 years of age Males and females of a small postcode address Other areas considered were housewife, house with children, and working status Sample Size: 2048 participants were eligible to participate. They were gathered from random sampling from the Kantar TNS market research agency. They were selected from April and May of 2016 · N/A	Overall cancer stigma was low but there was variation among the six subdomains In those six subdomains stigma was high regarding severity of cancer, ability to make financial decisions, policy opposition statements, personal responsibility statements, avoiding someone diagnosed with cancer Stigma was higher in men and those of different ethnic backgrounds Higher the stigma, the higher the association was of not being screened as recommended These measures can be used to help track and reduce cancer stigma over time	Direct questions from the Cancer Stigma Scale (CASS) were provided Answers were provided in quantitative reports and then averages were provided Weighted and unweighted sample characteristics were provided and further unweighted sociodemographic associations using BAME (black, Asian, and minority ethnic)	Reduced number of items on the CASS scale yielded decreased internal validity The Attitudes, Behavior and Cancer UK Survey (ABACUS) had no response rate recorded by the market agency The CASS was only applicable to cancer in general not specific types of cancer and other research has shown that there is greater stigma to other specific types of cancer. CASS scale being shortened the internal reliability was lowered Due to this being a cross-sectional study there was not causality between cancer stigma and cancer screening attendance	Evidence level: III Quality: A
			· N/A
			· N/A
			· N/A
			· N/A
			· N/A

Attach a reference list with full citations of articles reviewed for this Practice question.

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice

Appendix G: Individual Evidence Summary Tool

The Johns Hopkins Hospital/ The Johns Hopkins University

Directions for Use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Purpose

This form is used to document the results of evidence appraisal in preparation for evidence synthesis. The form provides the EBP team with documentation of the sources of evidence used, the year the evidence was published or otherwise communicated, the information gathered from each evidence source that helps the team answer the EBP question, and the level and quality of each source of evidence.

Article Number

Assign a number to each reviewed source of evidence. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.

Author and Date

Indicate the last name of the first author or the evidence source and the publication/communication date. List both author/evidence source and date.

Evidence Type

Indicate the type of evidence reviewed (for example: RCT, meta-analysis, mixed methods, quaLitative, systematic review, case study, narrative literature review).

Sample, Sample Size, and Setting

Provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location.

Findings That Help Answer the EBP Question

Although the reviewer may find many points of interest, list only findings that directly apply to the EBP question.

Observable Measures

QuaNtitative measures or variables are used to answer a research question, test a hypothesis, describe characteristics, or determine the effect, impact, or influence. QuaLitative evidence uses cases, context, opinions, experiences, and thoughts to represent the phenomenon of study.

Limitations

Include information that may or may not be within the text of the article regarding drawbacks of the piece of evidence. The evidence may list limitations, or it may be evident to you, as you review the evidence, that an important point is missed or the sample does not apply to the population of interest.

Evidence Level and Quality

Using information from the individual appraisal tools, transfer the evidence level and quality rating into this column.