Capstone replies | Nursing homework help

Klyuchkoreplycapstone.docx

Klyuchko, Natalya

FNU

24FALLB-NGR6970-DBX-DL02

MSN Capstone Project

Dr. Pupo PhD, RN, TNCC

12/03/2024

The measurement tools for evaluating my research include antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and clinical outcomes such as urinalysis, ultrasound, and blood tests. AST measures bacterial resistance and will help evaluate the effectiveness of targeted antibiotic therapy based on susceptibility results (Smith & Kirby, 2019). On the other hand, PROMs are standardized, validated survey tools that assess a patient's self-reported health outcomes, including symptoms, health behaviors, and knowledge about AMR and UTI prevention (Churruca et al., 2021). Urinalysis will be crucial in tracking the presence of UTIs, while ultrasound and blood tests will make it easier to monitor for complications such as pyelonephritis, preterm birth, or maternal sepsis. These tools effectively evaluate the outcomes of the intervention, which focuses on the use of targeted antibiotic therapy for managing UTIs in pregnant women. In addition to these measuring tools, I will rely on Scopus, a comprehensive, multidisciplinary database that provides access to high-quality academic articles and journals. Through this database, I will locate relevant articles addressing topics such as antimicrobial resistance among pregnant women, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, urinalysis, and adverse effects of antimicrobial resistance among pregnant women. These articles will help conduct a literature review and gather what other researchers say about the topic.

In comparing the before and after intervention, I will ensure that at the beginning of the study, I collect baseline data on AMR patterns through AST, clinical outcomes such as UTI recurrence, maternal and fetal health, and patient knowledge and behaviors through PROMs. After the intervention, I will collect the data again at key time points such as 1 month, 3 months, or 6 months to track changes in the same metrics. When AST results before the intervention are compared with results after the intervention, it will be possible to evaluate whether the intervention reduces AMR. On the other hand, comparing pre- and post-intervention responses in PROMs will help assess changes in patient knowledge, symptom relief, and behaviors such as antibiotic adherence. Collecting crucial metrics before and after the intervention will also help evaluate clinical outcomes such as UTI recurrence, preterm birth rates, and other complications before and after the intervention, noting differences that suggest the intervention's efficacy.

References

Churruca, K., Pomare, C., Ellis, L. A., Long, J. C., Henderson, S. B., Murphy, L. E., ... & Braithwaite, J. (2021). Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expectations, 24(4), 1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13254

Smith, K. P., & Kirby, J. E. (2019). Rapid susceptibility testing methods. Clinics in laboratory medicine, 39(3), 333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2019.04.001

CeliaDelgadoreplycapstone.docx

Celia Delgado

Florida National University

MSN Capstone Project

12/04/2024

Measurement Tools for Research Evaluation

It is fundamentally important to choose the right measurement tools for evaluating the research results accurately while doing research. Depending on the research design, tools available for measurement include surveys, interviews, observation checklists, standardized tests, focus groups, and content analysis. There is a whole range of digital tools such as Mendeley, Scopus, ORCID, etc. that are used to manage and access the academic literature required to inform research methods and findings.

Measurement Tools for Evaluation

For evaluating research, the following tools can be applied:

1. Surveys and Questionnaires:

2. Surveys become very useful confines for gathering quantitative data before and after interventions. A Likert scale may be used to determine any changes in attitudes towards a phenomenon or their perceptions of it along a continuum. For example, if a study aims to assess how well information acquired following an educational intervention relates to prior knowledge, a survey can be used before and after the intervention to compare changes in this respect.

3. Standardized Tests:

They provide objective and valid data about an individual's performance or comprehension in a particular area. The pre-and post-test designs allow measuring and comparing the knowledge, skills, or attitudes before and after each event.

1. Observation Checklists:

These are structured checklists designed to assess behavior change due to interventions. For example, an observation checklist in a clinical environment will look after compliance with hand hygiene protocol before and after a training session.

1. Interviews and Focus Groups:

2. Interviews and focus groups serve to qualitatively evaluate the rich insight of experiences and perceptions of participants. They are particularly useful in mixed-method research, especially when integrating with quantitative findings.

Comparing Before and After Intervention

Perhaps the most basic design for evaluating the effect of an intervention is the pretest-posttest format. This design is characterized by baseline measurement (pretest) and repeated measurement using the same instruments following the intervention (posttest). Quantitative tools like most surveys and standardized tests produce numbers for statistical analysis, while qualitative tools such as interviews probe to reach deeper contextual changes.

· Quantitative Analysis: Argument regarding the paired t-test relating mean differences in scored pretest and posttest results.

· Qualitative Analysis: Further, thematic coding of interview transcripts from pre and post-test interventions should yield an indication as to the change that may have occurred in the lenses of the participants.

Conclusion

It should be owned by whichever tools one chooses to assess the research question or design. Without validity and reliability in the tool, credible results cannot be ensured. To take it entirely a step further, qualitative and quantitative approaches should be combined to fully harmonize the evaluation achieved by the research on the effect of the intervention.

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2021). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Klyuchkoreplycapstone.docx

Klyuchko, Natalya

FNU

24FALLB-NGR6970-DBX-DL02

MSN Capstone Project

Dr. Pupo PhD, RN, TNCC

12/03/2024

The measurement tools for evaluating my research include antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and clinical outcomes such as urinalysis, ultrasound, and blood tests. AST measures bacterial resistance and will help evaluate the effectiveness of targeted antibiotic therapy based on susceptibility results (Smith & Kirby, 2019). On the other hand, PROMs are standardized, validated survey tools that assess a patient's self-reported health outcomes, including symptoms, health behaviors, and knowledge about AMR and UTI prevention (Churruca et al., 2021). Urinalysis will be crucial in tracking the presence of UTIs, while ultrasound and blood tests will make it easier to monitor for complications such as pyelonephritis, preterm birth, or maternal sepsis. These tools effectively evaluate the outcomes of the intervention, which focuses on the use of targeted antibiotic therapy for managing UTIs in pregnant women. In addition to these measuring tools, I will rely on Scopus, a comprehensive, multidisciplinary database that provides access to high-quality academic articles and journals. Through this database, I will locate relevant articles addressing topics such as antimicrobial resistance among pregnant women, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, urinalysis, and adverse effects of antimicrobial resistance among pregnant women. These articles will help conduct a literature review and gather what other researchers say about the topic.

In comparing the before and after intervention, I will ensure that at the beginning of the study, I collect baseline data on AMR patterns through AST, clinical outcomes such as UTI recurrence, maternal and fetal health, and patient knowledge and behaviors through PROMs. After the intervention, I will collect the data again at key time points such as 1 month, 3 months, or 6 months to track changes in the same metrics. When AST results before the intervention are compared with results after the intervention, it will be possible to evaluate whether the intervention reduces AMR. On the other hand, comparing pre- and post-intervention responses in PROMs will help assess changes in patient knowledge, symptom relief, and behaviors such as antibiotic adherence. Collecting crucial metrics before and after the intervention will also help evaluate clinical outcomes such as UTI recurrence, preterm birth rates, and other complications before and after the intervention, noting differences that suggest the intervention's efficacy.

References

Churruca, K., Pomare, C., Ellis, L. A., Long, J. C., Henderson, S. B., Murphy, L. E., ... & Braithwaite, J. (2021). Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expectations, 24(4), 1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13254

Smith, K. P., & Kirby, J. E. (2019). Rapid susceptibility testing methods. Clinics in laboratory medicine, 39(3), 333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2019.04.001

CeliaDelgadoreplycapstone.docx

Celia Delgado

Florida National University

MSN Capstone Project

12/04/2024

Measurement Tools for Research Evaluation

It is fundamentally important to choose the right measurement tools for evaluating the research results accurately while doing research. Depending on the research design, tools available for measurement include surveys, interviews, observation checklists, standardized tests, focus groups, and content analysis. There is a whole range of digital tools such as Mendeley, Scopus, ORCID, etc. that are used to manage and access the academic literature required to inform research methods and findings.

Measurement Tools for Evaluation

For evaluating research, the following tools can be applied:

1. Surveys and Questionnaires:

2. Surveys become very useful confines for gathering quantitative data before and after interventions. A Likert scale may be used to determine any changes in attitudes towards a phenomenon or their perceptions of it along a continuum. For example, if a study aims to assess how well information acquired following an educational intervention relates to prior knowledge, a survey can be used before and after the intervention to compare changes in this respect.

3. Standardized Tests:

They provide objective and valid data about an individual's performance or comprehension in a particular area. The pre-and post-test designs allow measuring and comparing the knowledge, skills, or attitudes before and after each event.

1. Observation Checklists:

These are structured checklists designed to assess behavior change due to interventions. For example, an observation checklist in a clinical environment will look after compliance with hand hygiene protocol before and after a training session.

1. Interviews and Focus Groups:

2. Interviews and focus groups serve to qualitatively evaluate the rich insight of experiences and perceptions of participants. They are particularly useful in mixed-method research, especially when integrating with quantitative findings.

Comparing Before and After Intervention

Perhaps the most basic design for evaluating the effect of an intervention is the pretest-posttest format. This design is characterized by baseline measurement (pretest) and repeated measurement using the same instruments following the intervention (posttest). Quantitative tools like most surveys and standardized tests produce numbers for statistical analysis, while qualitative tools such as interviews probe to reach deeper contextual changes.

· Quantitative Analysis: Argument regarding the paired t-test relating mean differences in scored pretest and posttest results.

· Qualitative Analysis: Further, thematic coding of interview transcripts from pre and post-test interventions should yield an indication as to the change that may have occurred in the lenses of the participants.

Conclusion

It should be owned by whichever tools one chooses to assess the research question or design. Without validity and reliability in the tool, credible results cannot be ensured. To take it entirely a step further, qualitative and quantitative approaches should be combined to fully harmonize the evaluation achieved by the research on the effect of the intervention.

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2021). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Klyuchkoreplycapstone.docx

Klyuchko, Natalya

FNU

24FALLB-NGR6970-DBX-DL02

MSN Capstone Project

Dr. Pupo PhD, RN, TNCC

12/03/2024

The measurement tools for evaluating my research include antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and clinical outcomes such as urinalysis, ultrasound, and blood tests. AST measures bacterial resistance and will help evaluate the effectiveness of targeted antibiotic therapy based on susceptibility results (Smith & Kirby, 2019). On the other hand, PROMs are standardized, validated survey tools that assess a patient's self-reported health outcomes, including symptoms, health behaviors, and knowledge about AMR and UTI prevention (Churruca et al., 2021). Urinalysis will be crucial in tracking the presence of UTIs, while ultrasound and blood tests will make it easier to monitor for complications such as pyelonephritis, preterm birth, or maternal sepsis. These tools effectively evaluate the outcomes of the intervention, which focuses on the use of targeted antibiotic therapy for managing UTIs in pregnant women. In addition to these measuring tools, I will rely on Scopus, a comprehensive, multidisciplinary database that provides access to high-quality academic articles and journals. Through this database, I will locate relevant articles addressing topics such as antimicrobial resistance among pregnant women, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, urinalysis, and adverse effects of antimicrobial resistance among pregnant women. These articles will help conduct a literature review and gather what other researchers say about the topic.

In comparing the before and after intervention, I will ensure that at the beginning of the study, I collect baseline data on AMR patterns through AST, clinical outcomes such as UTI recurrence, maternal and fetal health, and patient knowledge and behaviors through PROMs. After the intervention, I will collect the data again at key time points such as 1 month, 3 months, or 6 months to track changes in the same metrics. When AST results before the intervention are compared with results after the intervention, it will be possible to evaluate whether the intervention reduces AMR. On the other hand, comparing pre- and post-intervention responses in PROMs will help assess changes in patient knowledge, symptom relief, and behaviors such as antibiotic adherence. Collecting crucial metrics before and after the intervention will also help evaluate clinical outcomes such as UTI recurrence, preterm birth rates, and other complications before and after the intervention, noting differences that suggest the intervention's efficacy.

References

Churruca, K., Pomare, C., Ellis, L. A., Long, J. C., Henderson, S. B., Murphy, L. E., ... & Braithwaite, J. (2021). Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition‐specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expectations, 24(4), 1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13254

Smith, K. P., & Kirby, J. E. (2019). Rapid susceptibility testing methods. Clinics in laboratory medicine, 39(3), 333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cll.2019.04.001