Deactivated Wendy Santos - 3 Posts, Re: Topic 1, DQ 1, The T

Deactivatedwendy Santos3 Postsretopic 1 Dq 1 the Two Databases That I

The two databases that I have chosen to use in order to help research and support my evidence-based practice (EBP) proposal are the CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source databases (Grand Canyon University, 2017). Utilizing scholarly sources is essential in research because these sources typically undergo peer review, ensuring the credibility, accuracy, and scholarly integrity of the information (Rider University, 2017). Peer-reviewed articles are authored and reviewed by experts in their respective fields, providing an authoritative foundation for research arguments (Utah State University, n.d.).

Scholarly databases comprise a diverse array of academic resources including peer-reviewed journals, books, reports, and streaming videos, all of which can be filtered by specific subjects to streamline research efforts (Rider University, 2017). These databases offer functionalities that allow users to narrow searches by publication date, language, publication type, and research articles, making the search process more efficient and targeted (Rider University, 2017). Furthermore, these platforms often display detailed information about article authors, including credentials and affiliations, along with citations and footnotes that support the credibility and traceability of the research (Rider University, 2017).

While Google Scholar is a popular tool for broad academic searches across various disciplines, it has limitations. It is a search engine that indexes a wide range of document types, including books and articles; however, many of its entries are outdated, with limited options for advanced filtering such as publication type or specific keywords (University of Minnesota, 2017). Although Google Scholar can serve as a supplementary tool for locating sources and cross-referencing library databases, it lacks the sophistication necessary for in-depth, highly focused research. The lack of guaranteed peer-review status and potential inclusion of non credible sources makes it less reliable for rigorous academic work (University of Minnesota, 2017).

Additionally, general internet search engines pose significant challenges for academic research due to their lack of regulation, insufficient filtering mechanisms, and unlimited accessibility, which may lead to retrieving unreliable or duplicate information (Rider University, 2017). Content on the internet can be produced by anyone and may include news, blogs, videos, images, or music, often without any review process to verify accuracy or credibility (Rider University, 2017). Moreover, internet sources might require payment to access full articles or information, and they often lack advanced search functionalities, relying instead on algorithms that may not prioritize scholarly content (Rider University, 2017).

When utilizing internet sources, it is crucial to critically evaluate the credibility, source authority, and relevance of the materials, as this process can be time-consuming but necessary to ensure accurate and reliable data before incorporation into research (Rider University, 2017). Ultimately, for rigorous academic research and credible evidence supporting an EBP proposal, scholarly databases like CINAHL and ProQuest are more trustworthy and efficient, whereas tools like Google Scholar can provide supplementary information, and general search engines require careful scrutiny before use.

Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of healthcare research, selecting appropriate databases is fundamental to obtaining high-quality, credible evidence necessary for informing clinical practice. Among the multitude of available resources, scholarly databases such as CINAHL and ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source are particularly valuable for their peer-reviewed content and focus on health-related literature. These platforms facilitate a rigorous search for evidence, ensuring that research is grounded in scientifically validated information.

The CINAHL database is a comprehensive source specifically tailored to nursing and allied health disciplines. It provides access to a wide array of peer-reviewed journal articles, clinical studies, conference proceedings, and evidence-based reports. The database’s advanced filtering options allow users to narrow search results by publication date, subject, author credentials, and research type, thereby enhancing research efficiency (Grand Canyon University, 2017). The inclusion of peer-reviewed articles reassures researchers of the validity and scholarly validity of the information, which is critical when developing an evidence-based practice (EBP) proposal.

Similarly, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source offers extensive health sciences literature, including dissertations, theses, professional journal articles, and clinical guidelines. Its user-friendly interface supports precise keyword searches and sophisticated filtering options, which enable researchers to refine searches according to date range, publication type, and subject area. This focus on scholarly content ensures that findings are reliable and suitable for informing clinical decisions (Grand Canyon University, 2017). Such databases are preferred because they limit results to peer-reviewed, credible sources, thus maintaining a high standard of evidence.

While traditional search engines like Google Scholar are often used to supplement research, they have notable limitations. Google Scholar provides access to a broad spectrum of academic and non-academic sources, including books, theses, and preprints; however, many entries are not peer-reviewed and may be outdated (University of Minnesota, 2017). The lack of control over source quality and the limited ability to filter results more granularly pose challenges to ensuring evidence accuracy. Moreover, Google Scholar does not support robust advanced search features, making it less suitable for targeted, systematic searches essential in EBP development.

General internet search engines also present significant issues for scholarly research because they lack content regulation and do not distinguish between credible and unreliable sources. Content may be produced by anyone, often without a peer review process or rigorous verification, increasing the risk of incorporating inaccurate information into research (Rider University, 2017). Additionally, many online sources may require monetary payment to access full-text articles, which can restrict data availability and limit comprehensive evidence gathering.

Evaluating the credibility of internet sources involves critical assessment of the author’s expertise, publication provenance, and the currency and accuracy of the information. This process can be labor-intensive, emphasizing the importance of relying predominantly on scholarly databases that offer peer-reviewed, authoritative content (Rider University, 2017). In conclusion, the strategic selection of databases like CINAHL and ProQuest ensures access to high-quality evidence essential for developing an effective and credible EBP proposal, whereas supplementary use of Google Scholar can broaden the literature base, and reliance on general internet search engines should be approached with caution.

References

  • Grand Canyon University. (2017). GCU library. Grand Canyon University. Retrieved from https://library.gcu.edu
  • Rider University. (2017). Choosing and using library databases. Retrieved from https://rider.libguides.com
  • University of Minnesota. (2017). What is Google Scholar? Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com
  • Utah State University. (n.d.). Why use peer-reviewed articles? Retrieved from https://library.usu.edu
  • Funk, C. L., & Parker, V. (2020). Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare. Springer Publishing.
  • CINAHL Complete. (2022). EBSCO Information Services. Retrieved from https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/cinahl-complete
  • ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source. (2022). ProQuest. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com
  • Levitov, J. E. (2019). Conducting systematic reviews: A practical guide. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(2), 73-81.
  • Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2017). Evidence-based medicine: How to interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 22(6), 207-209.
  • Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2016). Looking within: A critique of meta-synthesis methodology. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 53, 29-41.

Related Assignments