Evidence-Based Project Assignment

Part 4: Critical Appraisal Of Research

Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.

ORDER NOW FOR COMPREHENSIVE, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS

Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action. Evidence-Based Project Assignment

In this Assignment, you will use appraisal tools to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.

To Prepare:

Review the Resources and consider the importance of critically appraising research evidence.
Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tools document provided in the Resources.

The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)

Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tools document. Be sure to include:

An evaluation table
A levels of evidence table
An outcomes synthesis table

Part 4B: Critical Appraisal of Research

Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research. Evidence-Based Project Assignment

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 5, “Critically Appraising Quantitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 124–188)
Chapter 6, “Critically Appraising Qualitative Evidence for Clinical Decision Making” (pp. 189–218)

Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Critical appraisal of qualitative evidence. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 15(3), 202–207. doi:10.1177/1078390309338733. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1022.62&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part I. American Journal of Nursing, 110(7), 47–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000383935.22721.9c. Retrieved from https://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2010/07000/Evidence_Based_Practice_Step_by_Step__Critical.26.aspx

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part II: Digging deeper—examining the “keeper” studies. American Journal of Nursing, 110(9), 41–48. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000388264.49427.f9. Retrieved from https://www.nursingcenter.com/nursingcenter_redesign/media/EBP/AJNseries/Critical2.pdf

Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2010c). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Critical appraisal of the evidence: Part III: The process of synthesis: Seeing similarities and differences across the body of evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(11), 43–51. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000390523.99066.b5. Retrieved from

https://www.nursingcenter.com/nursingcenter_redesign/media/EBP/AJNseries/Critical3.pdf

ical2.pdf

Rubric:

Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected and analyzed by completing the Critical Appraisal Tools document. Be sure to include:

·   An evaluation table
·   A levels of evidence table
·   An outcomes synthesis table–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The critical appraisal accurately clearly provides a detailed levels of evidence table. The levels of evidence are accurate and fully aligned to the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed outcomes synthesis table. The outcomes synthesis accurately describes in detail the relevance of the peer-reviewed articles selected and is fully aligned to each of the peer-reviewed articles.Good 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity.

The critical appraisal accurately provides a levels of evidence table. The levels of evidence are accurate and are adequately aligned to the peer-reviewed articles selected. Evidence-Based Project Assignment

The critical appraisal accurately provides an outcomes synthesis table. The outcomes synthesis accurately describes the relevance of the peer-reviewed articles selected and is adequately aligned to each of the peer-reviewed articles.Fair 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate or vague levels of evidence table. The levels of evidence inaccurately or vaguely align to the peer-reviewed articles selected.

The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate or vague outcomes synthesis table. The outcomes synthesis inaccurately or vaguely describes the relevance of the peer-reviewed articles and is inaccurately or vaguely aligned to each of the peer-reviewed articles.Poor 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing.

The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate and vague levels of evidence table or it is missing.

The critical appraisal provides an inaccurate and vague outcomes synthesis table or it is missing.Feedback:

Part 4B: Evidence-Based Best Practices

Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided.

Accurate, complete, and full APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.Good 28 (28%) – 31 (31%) The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided.

Accurate and complete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.Fair 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed.

The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided.

Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed.Poor 0 (0%) – 24 (24%) The responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing.

The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field, or are missing. A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided. Evidence-Based Project Assignment

Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed or is missing.Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated yet is brief and not descriptive.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.Feedback:

Written Expression and Formatting—The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.–

Levels of Achievement:Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors.Good 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors.Fair 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%) Contains several (three or four) APA format errors.Poor 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

USW1_NURS_6052_CriticalAppraisalTools.doc

Evaluation Table

Use this document to complete the evaluation table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

Full *citation* of selected article	Article #1	Article #2	Article #3	Article #4

*Conceptual Framework* Describe the theoretical basis for the study
*Design/Method* Describe the design and how the study was carried out
*Sample/Setting* The number and characteristics of patients, attrition rate, etc.
*Major Variables Studied* List and define dependent and independent variables
*Measurement* Identify primary statistics used to answer clinical questions
*Data Analysis* Statistical or qualitative findings
*Findings and Recommendations* General findings and recommendations of the research
*Appraisal* Describe the general worth of this research to practice. What are the strengths and limitations of study? What are the risks associated with implementation of the suggested practices or processes detailed in the research? What is the feasibility of use in your practice?
General Notes/Comments

Levels of Evidence Table

Use this document to complete the levels of evidence table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

*Author* and *year* of selected article	Article #1	Article #2	Article #3	Article #4

*Study Design* Theoretical basis for the study
*Sample/Setting* The number and characteristics of patients
Evidence Level * (I, II, or III)
*Outcomes*
General Notes/Comments

* Evidence Levels:

· Level I

Experimental, randomized controlled trial (RCT), systematic review RTCs with or without meta-analysis

· Level II

Quasi-experimental studies, systematic review of a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, or quasi-experimental studies only, with or without meta-analysis

· Level III

Nonexperimental, systematic review of RCTs, quasi-experimental with/without meta-analysis, qualitative, qualitative systematic review with/without meta-synthesis

· Level IV

Respected authorities’ opinions, nationally recognized expert committee/consensus panel reports based on scientific evidence

· Level V

Literature reviews, quality improvement, program evaluation, financial evaluation, case reports, nationally recognized expert(s) opinion based on experiential evidence. Evidence-Based Project Assignment

Outcomes Synthesis Table

Use this document to complete the outcomes synthesis table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research

*Author* and *year* of selected article	Article #1	Article #2	Article #3	Article #4

*Sample/Setting* The number and characteristics of patients
*Outcomes*
*Key Findings*
*Appraisal and Study Quality*
General Notes/Comments

Critical Appraisal Tools Worksheet Template

ClinicalissueofinterestPicotquestion1.pptx

Clinical issue of interest

Silifat Jones-ibrahim

Walden university

Clinical issue of interest

Psychiatric interventions focus on effectively engaging patients through improving the level of interaction. Integration of evidence based practices provide a better environment where it is possible to outline specific measures that can be used to handle different patients conditions.

There is need to create a strong outline which help define important changes which help maintain an improved level of focus.

Psychiatric services provide a detailed understanding on specific concepts which help create a better emphasis on important concepts which can help improve individual physical and psychological wellbeing.

Violent behavior is associated with different factors including lack of therapeutic interventions as well as groups.

Therefore the research aims at determining whether lack of therapeutic activities and presence of groups increase violent behavior over a two week period.

Formulation of picot question

The Picot question focused on understanding the key interventions that can help improve inpatient psychiatric hospitals because of the increasing violent behavior among patients.

Aggressive behaviour in patients with psychiatric disorders has many possible causes.

Different psychiatric patients have different mental and psychological concerns which require a strong emphasis on specific aspects which can help improve quality of care.

Thus the research sought to understand the causes of violent behavior where two aspects were investigated within a two week period. Evidence-Based Project Assignment

Formulation of picot question

Therapeutic activities have been associated with different factors which provide a detailed emphasis important changes which help outline a strong emphasis on violent behavior among psychiatric patients.

Therefore understanding the effect of therapeutic activities and or group will provide a detailed focus on the development of psychiatric patients behavioral development.

The picot question development focused on these factors which help outline specific aspects which help understand psychiatric patients behavior.

Research databases

Choosing database provide a detailed emphasis on important changes which help outline a strong understanding on the underlying research literature based on the picot question. The databases that were included in the study are:-

PLOS One peer reviewed journal database

Physiology & behavior database

Aggression and Violent Behavior database

Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment database

References

Hallett, N., Huber, J. W., & Dickens, G. L. (2014). Violence prevention in inpatient psychiatric settings: Systematic review of studies about the perceptions of care staff and patients. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 502-514.

Iozzino, L., Ferrari, C., Large, M., Nielssen, O., & De Girolamo, G. (2015). Prevalence and risk factors of violence by psychiatric acute inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 10(6), e0128536.

Kamphuis, J., Dijk, D. J., Spreen, M., & Lancel, M. (2014). The relation between poor sleep, impulsivity and aggression in forensic psychiatric patients. Physiology & behavior, 123, 168-173.

Latalova, K., Kamaradova, D., & Prasko, J. (2014). Violent victimization of adult patients with severe mental illness: a systematic review. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 10, 1925.

Levels of evidence

Hallett, N., Huber, J. W., & Dickens, G. L. (2014). Violence prevention in inpatient psychiatric settings: Systematic review of studies about the perceptions of care staff and patients. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 502-514.

This article provide a strong emphasis on important aspects which help define a unique understanding violence prevention in inpatient setting. Primary and secondary prevention methods are crucial in creating an improved environment. care staff and patients have an important role in creating a conducive environment.

Levels of evidence

Iozzino, L., Ferrari, C., Large, M., Nielssen, O., & De Girolamo, G. (2015). Prevalence and risk factors of violence by psychiatric acute inpatients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 10(6), e0128536.

The article highlights that the prevalence of violence among psychiatric acute inpatients has increased significantly in recent past due to inability to control existing risk factors.

Factors associated with levels of violence in psychiatric units are similar to factors that are associated with violence among individual patients.

Levels of evidence

Kamphuis, J., Dijk, D. J., Spreen, M., & Lancel, M. (2014). The relation between poor sleep, impulsivity and aggression in forensic psychiatric patients. Physiology & behavior, 123, 168-173.

The study highlighted that to a large extent the results of this study support the hypothesis that poor sleep is related to impulsive, aggressive behaviour in forensic psychiatric patients.

Therefore , it is worthwhile to examine the protective effect of treatment of sleep difficulties on aggressive reactivity in (forensic) psychiatric populations.

Latalova, K., Kamaradova, D., & Prasko, J. (2014). Violent victimization of adult patients with severe mental illness: a systematic review. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 10, 1925.

The article highlights that victimization of persons with severe mental illness is a serious medical and social problem.

Thus, prevention and management of victimization should become a part of routine clinical care for patients with severe mental illness.

the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research

The strengths include focus on evidence based outcomes which provide a detailed emphasis on issues that are being addressed.

It is easier to relate with the findings because they focus on past literature in informing the existing gap in research.

It follows a systematic approach which is crucial and help identify positive research outcomes.