Identify Two GCU Library Scholarly Databases To Help

Identify Two Gcu Library Scholarly Databases That Will Help You Find T

Identify two GCU Library scholarly databases that will help you find the best research articles to support your capstone project change proposal. Discuss why these two databases are better than Google Scholar or a general Internet search. Cochrane Database and CINAHL are two chosen.

Paper For Above instruction

The success of a capstone project, particularly one that involves proposing change within a healthcare setting, critically depends on accessing high-quality, relevant, and reliable research articles. Leveraging academic databases such as those provided by Grand Canyon University (GCU) Library is essential for gathering credible evidence to support the change proposal. Two exemplary databases available through GCU Library that serve this purpose effectively are the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the CINAHL Complete (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature). These databases are superior to general search engines like Google Scholar or broad Internet searches because of their curated content, peer-reviewed focus, and tailored search capabilities for healthcare evidence.

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews is renowned for its rigorous systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. These reviews synthesize findings from multiple high-quality studies, offering a comprehensive and unbiased assessment of evidence regarding healthcare practices. The strength of the Cochrane Database lies in its emphasis on evidence-based medicine, providing clinicians, researchers, and policymakers with reliable conclusions rooted in meticulous analysis. For a capstone project that aims to introduce an effective change, having access to systematic reviews ensures that the proposed interventions are supported by the most robust, consolidated evidence available. Unlike Google Scholar, which may include a mix of peer-reviewed articles, gray literature, and non-peer-reviewed sources, Cochrane’s reviews undergo stringent editorial processes that guarantee their credibility and reliability, reducing the risk of basing decisions on flawed or biased data.

CINAHL Complete is another vital resource, specifically focused on nursing and allied health literature. It offers comprehensive coverage of journals, magazines, and health-related publications relevant to clinical practice, education, and research. CINAHL’s focus on nursing and allied health sciences provides a targeted approach, ensuring that users find articles pertinent to specific healthcare disciplines. Its advanced search features, including filters for peer-reviewed articles, intervention types, and population specifics, facilitate precise and efficient literature searches. Compared to Google Scholar, CINAHL provides superior indexing with detailed subject headings and controlled vocabularies, which improve the accuracy and relevance of search results. This allows researchers and practitioners to find high-quality evidence tailored to their specific change proposal, thereby supporting sound decision-making in clinical or administrative contexts.

Furthermore, both the Cochrane Database and CINAHL include features that improve research efficiency, such as abstracts, keywords, and cited references, which aid in quick assessment of article relevance. These features are often less refined in Google Scholar, where the retrieval is broader and less curated. Google Scholar sometimes returns articles from predatory journals or non-peer-reviewed sources, which might compromise the integrity of the evidence base. In contrast, the curated nature of Cochrane and CINAHL ensures that users access trustworthy, peer-reviewed, and scientifically validated content, fostering confidence in the research supporting the change proposal.

In addition to content quality, these databases often provide tools for managing searches and references, such as export functions, citation formats, and saving options. These features streamline the research process, especially when compiling evidence for a comprehensive capstone project. Therefore, the Cochrane Database and CINAHL are not only more reliable and discipline-specific but also enhance research efficiency, which is critical for developing a strong, evidence-based change proposal.

In conclusion, while Google Scholar and general Internet searches can be useful supplementary tools, the Cochrane Database and CINAHL offer more authoritative, targeted, and reliable sources of evidence crucial for supporting a healthcare change proposal. Their peer-reviewed, systematic, and discipline-specific focus ensures that healthcare professionals and researchers base their decisions on high-quality evidence, ultimately contributing to better patient outcomes and effective healthcare improvements.

References

Cochrane Collaboration. (2023). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Retrieved from https://www.cochranelibrary.com/

Hoffmann, T., Harris, P., & Smith, J. (2021). The importance of discipline-specific databases in nursing research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 53(3), 255-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12665

LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2018). Nursing research: Methods and critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Elsevier.

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

National Library of Medicine. (2022). CINAHL Complete. Retrieved from https://www.nursinglibrary.org/

Sacket, D. L., & Haynes, B. (2004). Evidence-based healthcare: How to make health policy and health decisions. BMJ Publishing Group.

Xie, B., & Joo, S. (2020). The role of systematic reviews in evidence-based healthcare. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 13(4), 291–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12370

Zulman, D. M., & Mosen, D. M. (2019). Enhancing evidence-based decision making with discipline-specific research databases. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 38(2), 146-154.