Course reflexion
Florida National University NUR3165
Course Reflection
Guidelines
Purpose
The purpose of this assignmentis to provide the student an opportunity to reflect on selected RN-BSN competencies acquired through the NUR3165 course.
Course Outcomes
This assignment provides documentation of student ability to meet the following course outcomes:
· The student will be able to produce a complete research paper.
· The student will identify the research methods, sources and application in nursing practice.
Points
This assignment is worth a total of 100 points (10%).
Due Date
Submit your completed assignment under the Assignment tab by Sunday11:59 p.m. EST of Week 15 as directed.
Requirements
1. The Course Reflectionis worth 100 points (10%) and will be graded on quality of self-assessment, use of citations, use of Standard English grammar, sentence structure, and overall organization based on the required components as summarized in the directions and grading criteria/rubric.
2. Follow the directions and grading criteria closely. Any questions about your essay may be posted under the Q&A forum under the Discussions tab.
3. The length of the reflection is to be within three to six pages excluding title page and reference pages.
4. APA format is required with both a title page and reference page. Use the required components of the review as Level 1 headers (upper and lower case, centered):
Note: Introduction – Write an introduction but do not use “Introduction” as a heading in accordance with the rules put forth in the Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (2010, p. 63).
a. Course Reflection
b. Conclusion
Preparing Your Reflection
The BSN Essentials (AACN, 2008)outline a number ofhealthcare policy and advocacycompetencies for theBSN-prepared nurse. Reflect on the NUR3165 course readings, discussion threads, and applications you have completed across this course and write a reflective essay regarding the extent to which you feel you are now prepared to:
1. “Explain the interrelationships among theory, practice, and research.
2. Demonstrate an understanding of the basic elements of the research process and models for applying evidence to clinical practice.
3. Advocate for the protection of human subjects in the conduct of research.
4. Evaluate the credibility of sources of information, including but not limited to databases and Internet resources.
5. Participate in the process of retrieval, appraisal, and synthesis of evidence in collaboration with other members of the healthcare team to improve patient outcomes.
6. Integrate evidence, clinical judgment, interprofessional perspectives, and patient preferences in planning, implementing, and evaluating outcomes of care.
7. Collaborate in the collection, documentation, and dissemination of evidence.
8. Acquire an understanding of the process for how nursing and related healthcare quality and safety measures are developed, validated, and endorsed.
9. Describe mechanisms to resolve identified practice discrepancies between identified standards and practice that may adversely impact patient outcomes.” (p. 16).
Reference:
American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN]. (2008). The essentials of baccalaureate education for professional nursing practice. Washington, DC: Author.
Directions and Grading Criteria
Category
Points
%
Description
(Introduction – see note under requirement #4 above)
8
8
Introduces the purpose of the reflection and addresses BSN Essentials (AACN, 2008) pertinent to healthcare policy and advocacy.
You Decide Reflection
80
80
Include a self-assessment regarding learning that you believe represents your skills, knowledge, and integrative abilities to meet the pertinent BSNEssential and sub-competencies (AACN, 2008) as a result of active learning throughout this course. Be sure to use examples from selected readings, threaded discussions, and/or applications to support your assertions to address each of the following sub-competencies:
(a) “Explain the interrelationships among theory, practice, and research.
(b) Demonstrate an understanding of the basic elements of the research process and models for applying evidence to clinical practice.
(c) Advocate for the protection of human subjects in the conduct of research.
(d) Evaluate the credibility of sources of information, including but not limited to databases and Internet resources.
(e) Participate in the process of retrieval, appraisal, and synthesis of evidence in collaboration with other members of the healthcare team to improve patient outcomes.
(f) Integrate evidence, clinical judgment, interprofessional perspectives, and patient preferences in planning, implementing, and evaluating outcomes of care.
(g) Collaborate in the collection, documentation, and dissemination of evidence.
(h) Acquire an understanding of the process for how nursing and related healthcare quality and safety measures are developed, validated, and endorsed.
(i) Describe mechanisms to resolve identified practice discrepancies between identified standards and practice that may adversely impact patient outcomes.” (AACN, 2008, p. 16).
Conclusion
4
4
An effective conclusion identifies the main ideas and major conclusions from the body of your essay. Minor details are left out. Summarize the benefits of the pertinent BSNEssential and sub-competencies (AACN, 2008)pertaining to scholarship for evidence-based practice.
Clarity of writing
6
6
Use of standard English grammar and sentence structure. No spelling errors or typographical errors. Organized around the required components using appropriate headers.Writing should demonstrate original thought without an over-reliance on the works of others.
APA format
2
2
All information taken from another source, even if summarized, must be appropriately cited in the manuscript and listed in the references using APA (6th ed.) format:
1. Document setup
2. Title and reference pages
3. Citations in the text and references.
Total:
100
100
A quality essay will meet or exceed all of the above requirements.
Grading Rubric
Assignment Criteria
Meets Criteria
Partially Meets Criteria
Does Not Meet Criteria
(Introduction – see note under requirement #4 above)
(8 pts)
Shortintroduction of selected BSNsub-competencies (AACN, 2008) pertinent to scholarship for evidence-based practice. Rationale is well presented, and purpose fully developed.
7 – 8 points
Basic understanding and/or limited use of original explanation and/or inappropriate emphasis on an area.
5 – 6 points
Little or very general introduction of selected BSNsub-competencies (AACN, 2008). Little to no original explanation; inappropriate emphasis on an area.
0 – 4 points
You Decide Reflection
(80 pts)
Excellent self-assessment of skills, knowledge, and integrative abilities pertinent to healthcare policy and advocacy. Reflection on pertinent BSNsub-competencies (AACN, 2008) supported with examples.
70 – 80 points
Basic self-assessment of skills, knowledge, and integrative abilities pertinent to healthcare policy and advocacy. Reflection on pertinent BSNsub-competencies (AACN, 2008) not supported with examples.
59 – 69 points
Little or very general self-assessment of skills, knowledge, and integrative abilities pertinent to healthcare policy and advocacy. Little or no reflection on pertinent BSNsub-competencies (AACN, 2008) or reflection not supported with examples.
0 – 58 points
Conclusion
(4 pts)
Excellent understanding of pertinent BSNsub- competencies (AACN, 2008). Conclusions are well evidenced and fully developed.
3 – 4 points
Basic understanding and/or limited use of original explanation and/or inappropriate emphasis on an area.
2 points
Little understanding of pertinent BSNsub-competencies (AACN, 2008). Little to no original explanation; inappropriate emphasis on an area.
0 – 1 point
Clarity of writing
(6 pts)
Excellent use of standard English showing original thought with minimal reliance on the works of others. No spelling or grammar errors. Well organized with proper flow of meaning.
5 – 6 points
Some evidence of own expression and competent use of language. No more than three spelling or grammar errors. Well organized thoughts and concepts.
3 – 4 points
Language needs development or there is an over-reliance on the works of others. Four or more spelling and/or grammar errors. Poorly organized thoughts and concepts.
0 – 2 points
APA format
(2 pts)
APA format correct with no more than 1-2 minor errors.
2 points
3-5 errors in APA format and/or 1-2 citations are missing.
1 point
APA formatting contains multiple errors and/or several citations are missing.
0 points
Total Points Possible = 100 points
NUR3165Course Reflection Guidelines x 08/21/19
4
Chapter 30
Systematic Reviews of Research Evidence
Copyright © 20
1
7 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
1
Question #1
Tell whether the following statement is true or false:
Evidence-based practice relies on rigorous integration of research evidence on a topic through systematic reviews.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Answer to Question #1
True
Evidence-based practice relies on rigorous integration of research evidence on a topic through systematic reviews. A systematic review methodically integrates research evidence about a specific research question using carefully developed sampling and data collection procedures that are spelled out in advance in a protocol.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Research Integration and Synthesis
Systematic review
Integrates research evidence about research question
Carefully developed
Sampling
Data collection procedures
Spelled out in advance in a protocol
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Question #2
Tell whether the following statement is true or false:
Systematic reviews of qualitative studies often involve statistical integration of findings through meta-analysis.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Answer to Question #2
False
Systematic reviews of quantitative studies often involve statistical integration of findings through meta-analysis, a procedure whose advantages include objectivity, enhanced power, and precision; meta-analysis is not appropriate, however, for broad questions or when there is substantial inconsistency of findings.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Types of Systematic Reviews #1
Systemic reviews
Metasyntheses
Qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs)
Mixed studies reviews
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
7
Types of Systematic Reviews #2
Meta-analysis
Objectivity
Enhanced power
Precision
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
8
Types of Systematic Reviews #3
Special types of review
Scoping reviews
Rapid reviews
Overview of reviews (umbrella review)
Living systemic reviews
Next-generation systematic reviews
Individual patient-level meta-analysis
Network meta-analysis (NMA)
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
9
Planning a Systematic Review #1
Broad steps in a systems review
Formulate the questions
Define eligibility criteria for the primary studies
Prepare a protocol for the review
Search for and retrieve primary studies
Select studies for inclusion in the review
Assess the quality of the selected primary studies
Extract data from the studies
Analyze and synthesize the data
Evaluate the degree of confidence in the results
Present the findings in a systematic review report
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
10
Planning a Systematic Review #2
Prepare to conduct a systematic review
Preliminary groundwork
PROSPERO
The review team
The review auspices
Computer software
Schedule for a systematic review
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
11
Question #3
Tell whether the following statement is true or false:
The steps in both quantitative and qualitative integration are similar.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Answer to Question #3
True
The steps in both quantitative and qualitative integration are similar and involve formulating the problem, designing the study, searching the literature for a sample of primary studies, evaluating study quality, extracting and encoding data for analysis, analyzing the data, and reporting the findings.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Reviews of Quantitative Research #1
Formulating the review question
Defining eligibility criteria
Study participants
Intervention/influence
Study design
Other criteria
Searching the literature for a sample of primary studies
Evaluating study quality
Extracting and encoding data for analysis
Analyzing the data
Reporting the findings
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Reviews of Quantitative Research #2
Preparing a review protocol
The title of the review
Members of the review team
Proposed schedule, with start and end dates
The research questions
Background/argument for the review
Eligibility criteria for studies in the review
Search strategy
Review methods
Assessment of confidence in the findings
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Question #4
Tell whether the following statement is true or false:
There is consensus on systematic reviews should include the grey literature.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Answer to Question #4
False
There is no consensus on whether systematic reviews should include the grey literature—that is, unpublished reports.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Reviews of Quantitative Research #3
Searching for and screening primary studies
PICO
MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE
Grey literature
Publication bias
Dissemination bias
Handsearching
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Reviews of Quantitative Research #4
Evaluating study quality and risk of bias
Cochrane Collaboration’s tool
Selection bias
Performance bias
Attrition bias
Reporting bias
Other bias
Extracting and encoding data for analysis
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Reviews of Quantitative Research #5
Analyzing and synthesizing the data
Criteria for using meta-analysis in a systematic review
Calculating effects in a meta-analysis
Analyzing data in a meta-analysis
Inverse variance method
Statistical heterogeneity
Forest plots
Random effects
Sensitivity analysis
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Reviews of Quantitative Research #6
Examining factors affecting heterogeneity
Methodologic heterogeneity
Subgroup analysis
Meta-regression
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Reviews of Quantitative Research #7
Addressing study quality
Set a quality threshold
Perform sensitivity analyses
Test indicators of bias
Weight studies according to quality criteria
Graphic output from a meta-analysis
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Reviews of Quantitative Research #8
Interpreting results and assessing degree of confidence: GRADE
Risk of bias
Inconsistent results
Indirectness of evidence
Imprecision
Publication bias
Large effect
Dose-response gradient
Implausible confounders
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Reviews of Quantitative Research #9
Interpreting results and assessing degree of confidence: GRADE (continued)
Evidence profile
Summary of findings
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Reviews of Quantitative Research #10
Writing a quantitative systematic review
The final step in a systematic review project is to prepare a report to disseminate the results.
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) is useful for writing up a systematic review of RCTs.
MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guides reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Qualitative Systematic Reviews #1
Aggregative and interpretive qualitative reviews
Aggregative qualitative reviews
Pooling of findings
Fairly structured
Fairly focused
Exhaustive searching is expected
Quality of primary studies is essential
Minimal subjectively or bias
Provide direct and usable guidance for action
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Qualitative Systematic Reviews #2
Aggregative and interpretive qualitative reviews
Interpretive qualitative reviews
Not highly structured
Fairly focused
Purposive sampling
Quality of primary studies is not essential
Interpreters’ insights are valued
Provide enlightenment through new ways of understanding
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Qualitative Systematic Reviews #3
Metasynthesis
Meta-ethnography
Megastudy
Metasummary
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Question #5
Tell whether the following statement is true or false:
Metasyntheses are more than just summaries of prior quantitative findings; they involve a discovery of essential features of a body of findings and, typically, a transformation that yields new insights and interpretations.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Answer to Question #5
False
Metasyntheses are more than just summaries of prior qualitative findings; they involve a discovery of essential features of a body of findings and, typically, a transformation that yields new insights and interpretations.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Qualitative Systematic Reviews #4
Preliminary steps in a metasynthesis
Formulating the question
Designing a metasynthesis
Searching the literature for data
Appraising study quality
Extracting data for analysis
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Qualitative Systematic Reviews #5
Synthesizing and interpreting the data
Meta-ethnography
Deciding on the phenomenon
Deciding on relevant studies
Reading and rereading each study
Deciding how studies are related
Translating qualitative studies
Synthesizing translations
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
32
Qualitative Systematic Reviews #6
Analyzing and interpreting data
Noblit and Hare approach
Paterson and colleagues approach
Sandelowski and Barroso approach
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
33
Qualitative Systematic Reviews #7
Paterson
Metadata analysis: the study of results in a specific substantive area through analysis of the processed data
Metamethod: the study of the studies’ methodologic rigor
Metatheory: the analysis of the theoretical underpinnings on which the studies are grounded
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Qualitative Systematic Reviews #8
Sandelowski and Barroso
Metasummary
Summaries: descriptive synopses
Syntheses: interpretative explanations of the data
Manifest effect sizes
Frequency effect size
Intensity effect size
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Qualitative Systematic Reviews #9
Writing a metasynthesis report
PRISMA
ENTREO
Meta-aggregation
The JBI meta-aggregation method
Preliminary steps in a JBI qualitative evidence synthesis
Analysis through meta-aggregation
Assessment of confidence
Writing a meta-aggregation report
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Systematic Mixed Studies Reviews
Rationale for mixed studies reviews
Conducting mixed studies reviews
Research questions for MSRs
Designs for mixed studies reviews
Segregated design
Integrated design
Contingent design
Approaches to analysis and integration
Realist reviews
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins