Fill in order details

  • Submit your instructions
    to writers for free!

Chat with the writer

  • Chat with preferred expert writers
  • Request a preview of your paper
    from them for free

Editing

  • Project edited by the quality evaluation department

Download Your Completed Project

  • Download the completed project from your account or have it sent to your email address

[ANSWERED] Submit a summary of six of your articles on the discussion board

Topic 3 DQ 1

Submit a summary of six of your articles on the discussion board. Discuss one strength and one weakness for each of these six articles on why the article may or may not provide sufficient evidence for your practice change.

Topic 3 DQ 2

Name two different methods for evaluating evidence. Compare and contrast these two methods.

Topic 3 DQ 1: Expert Answer and Explanation

Summary of Six Articles

The review by Dugani et al. (2018) found that various healthcare facilities in low and middle-income countries report high rate of burnout. The strength of this study is that the authors clearly showed the inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, few articles were used as the sample of the study making it hard to generalize findings. The strength of the paper by Griffiths et al. (2016) is that it has clearly highlighted what is know and what the paper aimed to achieve, and this can give the reader a clear picture of the focus of the paper. However, the weakness of the paper is that it experienced some level of bias with estimates from personal studies. Gyllensten, et al. (2017)’s strength is that the semi-structured data collection method allowed them to gather a lot of information. However, the weakness of the paper is that it had lower response rate of about 10%.

The strength of Hart et al. (2018)’s study was that the authors used credible and reliable databases to extract articles for review. Also, the authors explained how they excluded and included articles so well. However, the researchers had problem with originality of the study. The strength of the article by Kurnat-Thoma et al. (2017) is that they used sophisticated method to collect data and also, the data gathered was correct and accurate. However, some elements of biasness were detected in the study, and this affected findings. Lastly, the strength of the article by Souders et al. (2017) is that data analysis showed that the results were statistically significant. However, the researchers had limited time and resources to make the study larger and more accurate.

References

Dugani, S., Afari, H., Hirschhorn, L. R., Ratcliffe, H., Veillard, J., Martin, G., … & Bitton, A. (2018). Prevalence and factors associated with burnout among frontline primary health care providers in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Gates open research, 2. doi: 10.12688/gatesopenres.12779.2

Griffiths, P., Ball, J., Drennan, J., Dall’Ora, C., Jones, J., Maruotti, A., … & Simon, M. (2016). Nurse staffing and patient outcomes: Strengths and limitations of the evidence to inform policy and practice. A review and discussion paper based on evidence reviewed for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Safe Staffing guideline development. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 63, 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.03.012

Gyllensten, K., Andersson, G., & Muller, H. (2017). Experiences of reduced work hours for nurses and assistant nurses at a surgical department: a qualitative study. BMC nursing, 16(1), 16. https://bmcnurs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12912-017-0210-x

Hart, T., Samways, J. W., Kukendrarajah, K., Keenan, M., & Chaudhri, S. (2018). Improving out-of-hours surgical patient care. International journal of health care quality assurance. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJHCQA-08-2017-0148

Kurnat-Thoma, E., Ganger, M., Peterson, K., & Channell, L. (2017). Reducing annual hospital and registered nurse staff turnover—A 10-element onboarding program intervention. SAGE Open Nursing, 3, 2377960817697712. DOI: 10.1177/2377960817697712

Souders, C. P., Catchpole, K. R., Wood, L. N., Solnik, J. M., Avenido, R. M., Strauss, P. L., … & Anger, J. T. (2017). Reducing operating room turnover time for robotic surgery using a motor racing pit stop model. World journal of surgery, 41(8), 1943-1949. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00268-017-3936-4

 

Topic 3 DQ 2: Expert Answer and Explanation

Evaluation Methods

There are many approaches researchers can use to evaluate evidence. However, researchers should select the best methods that can work for them. That said, the key approaches that will be used to analyze evidence in this project are interviews and surveys. According to J. Phillips and P. Phillips (2016), survey is an evidence evaluation method where one is allowed to use series of questionnaires to gather information about the evidence. Through surveys, researchers are at liberty to use the open-ended or free-response inquiries to gather data. Apart from questionnaires, researchers can also use checklists as instruments to collect information about the evidence being evaluated. Järvelin and Kekäläinen (2017) define interview as the approach that can allow the evaluator to structure questions in a way that provides the interviewees the environment to respond to the questions freely. Interviews require that the structured or semi-structured questions are responded to in a documented form.

The following are the differences between the approaches. Järvelin and Kekäläinen (2017) report that through survey, researchers can cover many topics at a time while interviews can hinder the scholar from collecting much data because it takes a lot of time. Another significant difference is that surveys are conducted through instruments, such as checklists and questionnaires. However, interviews require that the researcher meets the participants fac-to-face. Though the two approaches are different, they are similar in the following ways. First, they can be used to evaluate the objectives, goals, and the findings of evidences. Second, the two methods can provide the researchers with opportunity to create a relationship with their respondents. Lastly, data collected using the two methods are easy to analyze.

References

Phillips, J. J., & Phillips, P. P. (2016). Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods. Routledge.

Järvelin, K., & Kekäläinen, J. (2017, August). IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents. In ACM SIGIR Forum (Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 243-250). New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3130348.3130374

What our customers say
_____

error: Content is protected !!