Introduction To Evidence-Based Practice Involves Finding The ✓ Solved

Introduction Evidence-based practice involves finding the best

Evidence-based practice involves finding the best research evidence to support an intervention, which is integrated with patient preferences and values and professional expertise, and then implemented. Once you have searched and found relevant and timely research studies, the next step is to evaluate the quality of their methods, design, and other elements and to explore the application of the evidence they provide in different scenarios and settings. It is of paramount importance to correctly identify the type of research methods used in the study—quantitative or qualitative, or a mixture of both—and to evaluate the study to ensure those methods are high-quality, valid, reliable, and accurate.

Consequently, doctoral professionals must develop a working knowledge of how to identify and critically appraise specific, important elements of both quantitative and qualitative research studies. Rapid critical appraisal tools assist in developing this skill. Preparation Review the media pieces in Weeks 1–3, focusing on the EBP process, the PICO(T) process, and the important step of critically appraising research evidence. Review the following two quantitative and qualitative studies. You will describe the key elements of each study and complete a critical appraisal of each.

Dorleijn, D. M. J., Luijsterburg, P. A. J., Reijman, M., Kloppenburg, M., Verhaar, J. A. N., Bindels, P. J. E., . . . Bierma-Zeinstra, S. (2018). Intramuscular glucocorticoid injection versus placebo injection in hip osteoarthritis: A 12-week blinded randomised controlled trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 77 (6), 875. Howson, A., Turell, W., & Roc, A. (2018). Perceived self-efficacy in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas: Qualitative outcomes in patient-directed education. Health Education Journal , 77 (4), 430–443.

Locate the following tools, found in Appendix B in your Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare textbook. You will use these tools to complete the appropriate rapid critical appraisal for each study. Choose the tool that matches the methods and design of each study. Rapid Critical Appraisal Questions for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), page 711. Rapid Critical Appraisal Questions for Qualitative Evidence, pages 715–716.

Write a paper in which you: Describe the key elements of a research study. Complete a rapid critical appraisal of each study. Write an executive summary that compares the two studies.

Your document should be 4–5 pages in length, including the overviews, rapid critical appraisals, and executive summary. Supporting Evidence Include at least two resources, other than the course textbook, to support your critical appraisals. Provide in-text citations and references in APA format for each study, the critical appraisal tools, and other resources used.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a fundamental approach to healthcare that combines clinical expertise, patient preferences, and the most current research evidence to inform decision-making in patient care. This paper will critically appraise two studies: a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on intramuscular glucocorticoid injection versus placebo in hip osteoarthritis and a qualitative study on perceived self-efficacy in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Key Elements of the Research Studies

The first study by Dorleijn et al. (2018) investigates the efficacy of intramuscular glucocorticoid injections compared to placebo in patients with hip osteoarthritis. The study's purpose is to determine the impact of glucocorticoid treatment on pain and function in this patient population. The methods involve a double-blinded, randomized design where participants received either the glucocorticoid injection or a placebo. The results indicated a statistically significant reduction in pain scores among those receiving the glucocorticoid injection compared to the placebo group, with an emphasis on the practicality of these findings in clinical settings.

The qualitative study by Howson et al. (2018) explores patient-directed education in individuals with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas, focusing on perceived self-efficacy. This study employs a phenomenological approach, gathering data through interviews to understand patients' experiences and feelings regarding their education and disease. Key findings highlight the importance of tailored educational materials in fostering patients’ self-efficacy and engagement in their care.

Critical Appraisal of Each Study

Using the Rapid Critical Appraisal Questions for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCA) for the first study, several key areas were assessed:

  • Study Design: The study employed a double-blinded, randomized controlled design, which is considered the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions.
  • Sample Size: The sample size was adequate, providing sufficient power to detect significant differences between groups.
  • Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes were well-defined, and the tools used to measure pain and function were validated.
  • Statistical Analysis: Appropriate statistical methods were employed to analyze the results, ensuring the findings are reliable.

According to the RCA criteria for qualitative studies, the second study was assessed on different dimensions:

  • Clarity of Research Objectives: The study clearly defined its aim to explore patients’ self-efficacy through qualitative methods.
  • Data Collection and Analysis: The use of semi-structured interviews allowed for in-depth insights. Thematic analysis was adequately performed.
  • Relevance of Findings: Findings contribute valuable perspectives to existing literature on patient education and self-efficacy.

Comparison of the Two Studies

The overarching comparison between the RCT and the qualitative study reveals distinct but complementary contributions to healthcare practice. The RCT by Dorleijn et al. offers robust quantitative evidence supporting the efficacy of a pharmacological intervention, important for direct clinical applications. Conversely, Howson et al. provide nuanced qualitative insights into the patient experience, ensuring that educational interventions are tailored to improve patient involvement and management of their health.

From a practical standpoint, Dorleijn et al.’s study showcases a statistically significant treatment option for managing hip osteoarthritis, directly impacting clinical decisions and patient outcomes. In contrast, Howson et al.’s research enhances understanding of patients’ need for empowerment in health management, which is critical for patient-centered care.

Significance of Results in Healthcare Settings

The results of Dorleijn et al.'s study hold significant implications for pain management protocols in hospital settings. Incorporating glucocorticoids could offer relief for patients who struggle with non-pharmacologic interventions. On the other hand, Howson et al. highlight the importance of effective communication and education strategies that healthcare providers can implement to enhance patients’ confidence in managing their conditions. Together, the studies reinforce the need for a holistic approach that integrates evidence-based treatments with strong patient education frameworks.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both studies contribute valuable information that can improve the quality of care in healthcare settings. While the quantitative study provides essential data for treatment efficacy, the qualitative study emphasizes the importance of patient-centered education in fostering self-efficacy. Future research could explore the integration of these approaches to develop comprehensive care strategies that address both medical and educational needs.

References

  • Dorleijn, D. M. J., Luijsterburg, P. A. J., Reijman, M., Kloppenburg, M., Verhaar, J. A. N., Bindels, P. J. E., & Bierma-Zeinstra, S. (2018). Intramuscular glucocorticoid injection versus placebo injection in hip osteoarthritis: A 12-week blinded randomised controlled trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 77(6), 875.
  • Howson, A., Turell, W., & Roc, A. (2018). Perceived self-efficacy in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas: Qualitative outcomes in patient-directed education. Health Education Journal, 77(4), 430–443.
  • Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice. Wolters Kluwer Health.
  • Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Wolters Kluwer.
  • Graham, I. D., & Tetroe, J. (2007). Some Practical Guidelines for Knowledge Translation in Health Care. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 27(1), 5–20.
  • McKibbon, K. A., & Wilczynski, N. L. (2004). A Cross-Sectional Study of Health Professionals’ Use of Evidence-Based Information. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 24(3), 125–133.
  • Greenhalgh, T., & Richard, G. (2015). Evidence based medicine: the challenge of new perspectives. Evidence-Based Medicine, 20(4), 96-100.
  • Beck, C. T. (2020). Using qualitative research in nursing. Nurse Researcher, 27(2), 12-18.
  • Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: Thousand Oaks. SAGE Publications.
  • Naylor, M. D., & Kurtzman, E. T. (2010). The Role of Nurse Practitioners in Reinventing Primary Care. Health Affairs, 29(5), 893-899.

Related Assignments