Epidemiology
INTRODUCTION
In everyday life, reviews are often used to assess the quality of products in the marketplace. Information on a product is compiled from many sources, and then an overall assessment is made. In research, too, there are methods for identifying and synthesizing the existing evidence from primary research on a topic, known as
systematic reviews. In the hierarchy of evidence—the foundation of evidence-based practice—high-quality systematic reviews are placed at the top of the hierarchy and are considered excellent sources of evidence because they summarize or combine findings from multiple studies.
This week you focus on systematic reviews generally, as well as one specific type of systematic review, the meta-analysis. You will explore the validity of the use of these techniques, as well as their strengths and limitations.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students will:
· Analyze the validity of the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in epidemiological research
· Analyze systematic review and meta-analysis epidemiological study designs
· Explain how epidemiologic information can be utilized in evidence-based nursing practice
This is a graded discussion: 100 points possible
Due April 17
Week 8: Discussion
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES
Systematic reviews are an umbrella term for a number of different review designs, all with specific goals (e.g., identify scope of available research or gaps, reduce bias, statistically combine and analyze results from multiple studies). They differ from basic literature review articles that qualitatively summarize the literature on a topic and do not necessarily have inclusion or exclusion criteria.
Epidemiological meta-analyses are quantitative types of systematic reviews, in which summary measures of exposure–outcome associations are calculated based on the results of a selection of existing studies. In other words, a meta-analysis statistically combines the results from multiple studies, with the goal of calculating more precise measures, increasing sample size, or reducing bias in the combined results. The goal of meta-analysis is to obtain a more robust understanding of the relationship between an exposure and a health outcome than could be obtained from a single study. While meta-analyses are considered to be strong research designs because of their formal, statistical characteristics, they are not without weakness or critics. For instance, existing studies included in a meta-analysis may have strengths and limitations of their own.
For this Discussion, you examine the validity and strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in epidemiological research.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
LEARNING RESOURCES
Required Readings
· Driscoll, A., Grant, M. J., Carroll, D., Dalton, S., Deaton, C., Jones, I., Lehwaldt, D., McKee, G., Munyombwe, T., & Astin, F. (2018).
The effect of nurse-to-patient ratios on nurse-sensitive patient outcomes in acute specialist units: A systematic review and meta-analysisLinks to an external site.
.
European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing,
17(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515117721561
· Seidler, A. L., Hunter, K. E., Cheyne, S., Berlin, J. A., Ghersi, D., & Askie, L. M. (2020).
Prospective meta-analyses and Cochrane's role in embracing next-generation methodologiesLinks to an external site.
.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,
10, ED000145. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000145
· Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., … Moher, D. (2021).
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsLinks to an external site.
.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
134, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001
· Haidich, A. B. (2010).
Meta-analysis in medical researchLinks to an external site.
.
Hippokratia, 14 (Suppl. 1), 29–37. https://www.hippokratia.gr/images/PDF/14Sup1/699.pdf
· Melnyk, B. M., Kelly, S. A., Stephens, J., Dhakal, K., McGovern, C., Tucker, S., Hoying, J., McRae, K., Ault, S., Spurlock, E., & Bird, S. B. (2020).
Interventions to improve mental health, well-being, physical health, and lifestyle behaviors in physicians and nurses: A systematic reviewLinks to an external site.
.
American Journal of Health Promotion,
34(8), 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120920451
· Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019).
How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-synthesesLinks to an external site.
.
Annual Review of Psychology,
70, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
TO PREPARE:
· Review the studies and articles provided in the Learning Resources. Consider the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Make sure you are clear on the difference between the two approaches.
Post a brief summary of your informed opinion regarding the validity of the use of systematic reviews
and meta-analyses in epidemiological research. Include
at least two strengths or limitations of each technique. Provide evidence from
at least one of the articles in the Learning Resources to support and justify your position.
Assignment Rubric Details
Close
Rubric
NURS_8310_Week8_Discussion_Rubric
|
NURS_8310_Week8_Discussion_Rubric
|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)
|
|
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.
|
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.
|
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.
|
12 to >0 pts
Poor
• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
|
|
30 to >29.0 pts
Excellent
Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.
|
29 to >23.0 pts
Good
Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.
|
23 to >18.0 pts
Fair
Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.
|
18 to >0 pts
Poor
Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.
|
|
30 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)
|
|
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
|
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
|
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
|
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)
|
|
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
|
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
|
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.
|
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)
|
|
10 to >9.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
|
9 to >8.0 pts
Good
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
|
8 to >6.0 pts
Fair
Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
|
6 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
|
|
10 pts
|
|
Total Points: 100
|
Tinacherry100$
wk8.Epidemiology.docx
