+1 601-680-9567
ORDER NOW

NURS 6052 Walden University Week 4 Searching Databases Discussion

NURS 6052 Walden University Week 4 Searching Databases Discussion

NURS 6052 Walden University Week 4 Searching Databases Discussion

When you decide to purchase a new car, you first decide what is important to you. If mileage and dependability are the important factors, you will search for data focused more on these factors and less on color options and sound systems.

The same holds true when searching for research evidence to guide your clinical inquiry and professional decisions. Developing a formula for an answerable, researchable question that addresses your need will make the search process much more effective. One such formula is the PICO(T) format.

ORDER NOW FOR COMPREHENSIVE, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS

In this Discussion, you will transform a clinical inquiry into a searchable question in PICO(T) format, so you can search the electronic databases more effectively and efficiently. You will share this PICO(T) question and examine strategies you might use to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question.

To Prepare:

  • Review the materials offering guidance on using databases, performing keyword searches, and developing PICO(T) questions provided in the Resources.
  • Review the Resources for guidance and develop a PICO(T) question of interest to you for further study.

Post your PICO(T) question, the search terms used, and the names of at least two databases used for your PICO(T) question. Then, describe your search results in terms of the number of articles returned on original research and how this changed as you added search terms using your Boolean operators. Finally, explain strategies you might make to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question. Be specific and provide examples.

RESOURCES:

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.

  • Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
  • Chapter 3, “Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions” (pp. 55–92)

Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks for LIS professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WS5N

https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/htdocs/help/searchBoolean.html

Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58–61. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000368959.11129.79

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry. American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58

Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Searching for the evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41–47. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000372071.24134.7e

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/jbisearchhelp Evidence based practice research: Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI)

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/cinahlsearchhelp Evidence based CINAHL full text database

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/medlinesearchhelp Evidence based medline search help

 

Module03_Week04_Discussion_Rubric

MAIN POSTING—

 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.Supported by at least three credible sources.Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.Post is cited with two credible sources.Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.Contains only one or no credible sources.Not written clearly or concisely.Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.