PM Module 3 Assignment

32523 301 Pm Module 3 Assignmenthttpswaldenuinstructurecomc

In this assignment, you will delve deeper into clinical inquiry by examining your PICO(T) question, analyzing the evidence collected, and creating a PowerPoint presentation. You will identify and describe a clinical issue of interest, develop a PICO(T) question based on this issue, search for peer-reviewed high-level evidence across four databases, and describe the levels of evidence and strengths of systematic reviews. The presentation should include selected articles, their levels of evidence, and a discussion on the utility of systematic reviews in clinical research.

Paper For Above instruction

The process of clinical inquiry is central to evidence-based practice, allowing healthcare professionals to evaluate and incorporate the best available evidence into patient care. Developing a clear, focused PICO(T) question is foundational to guiding the search for and appraisal of relevant research. This assignment requires a comprehensive approach, starting with choosing a pertinent clinical issue and crafting an appropriate PICO(T) question that directs the evidence search. Once formulated, the next step involves systematically searching at least four high-quality databases available through the Walden Library. These databases typically include CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest, which provide access to systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and critically appraised topics.

The core of this assignment involves selecting four peer-reviewed articles, preferably systematic reviews or meta-analyses, that relate directly to the research question. If no systematic reviews are available on the specific topic, the highest level of evidence available should be used. Each article must be evaluated for its level of evidence, which ranges from high-quality systematic reviews to individual studies, with systematic reviews considered to provide stronger evidence due to their comprehensive and rigorous methodology. Explaining the levels of evidence involves discussing the hierarchy of evidence, such as the evidence pyramid, and why certain studies are considered more robust in informing clinical practice.

Furthermore, discussing the strengths of systematic reviews is essential. Systematic reviews synthesize findings from multiple studies, reducing bias and increasing the reliability of conclusions. They provide a comprehensive overview of existing research, identify gaps, and can inform practice guidelines. For example, systematic reviews often feature rigorous inclusion criteria, quality assessment of included studies, and transparent methodologies, which enhance credibility and applicability in clinical settings.

The PowerPoint presentation should be 6-7 slides long, structured to cover: (1) a brief description of the clinical issue, (2) development of the PICO(T) question, (3) identification of the four databases used, (4) APA citations of the selected articles, (5) discussion of each article’s level of evidence, and (6) explanation of the importance of systematic reviews in clinical research. Visual clarity, professional appearance, and accurate APA formatting are vital components of the presentation.

In conclusion, this project emphasizes the importance of systematic searching, critical appraisal of evidence, and understanding levels of evidence to support evidence-based practice. Systematic reviews serve as valuable resources because they synthesize large bodies of research, highlight consensus and discrepancies, and guide clinical decision-making. By engaging in this process, nurses and healthcare providers can build a stronger foundation for delivering high-quality, evidence-based patient care.

References

  • Bettany-Saltikov, J. (2012). How to do a systematic literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. Open University Press.
  • Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). Cochrane Collaboration.
  • Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
  • LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2018). Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (9th ed.). Elsevier.
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535.
  • Resnik, D. B., & Stewart, C. (2019). Guidelines for systematic reviews in health research. Public Health Review, 40, 1-15.
  • Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Muir Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ, 312(7023), 71-72.
  • Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. Churchill Livingstone.
  • Institute of Medicine. (2007). Evidence-based practice in health care. National Academies Press.
  • Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Schünemann, H. J., Sullivan, K., Waters, W., & Davies, J. (2011). Grade guidelines: A new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(4), 380–382.

Related Assignments