Topic 1: Defining Internal And External Evidence

Topic 1 Defining Internal And External Evidencediscuss The Difference

Topic 1: Defining Internal and External Evidence Discuss the difference between external and internal evidence as it relates to your PICOT search strategy. Address the strengths and weaknesses of searching in a databank versus a web-based search engine. You must use two databanks mentioned in the text. Please see the Discussion Board grading rubric on the Course Resources. Will need 3 references not older than 5 years () a minimum of 200 words.

Paper For Above instruction

Internal and external evidence are fundamental concepts within evidence-based practice (EBP), particularly in research and clinical decision-making. Internal evidence pertains to information derived from within the organization or individual, such as clinical expertise, patient preferences, and internal data. External evidence, on the other hand, involves data gathered from outside sources, including peer-reviewed studies, clinical guidelines, and systematic reviews. Within a PICOT search strategy, understanding the distinction between these two types of evidence is crucial for developing comprehensive and effective clinical questions and for guiding appropriate evidence retrieval.

Internal evidence plays a significant role in tailoring interventions to specific patient populations. It offers insights based on clinicians' clinical experience and patients' unique circumstances, thus fostering personalized care. Conversely, external evidence provides a broader perspective grounded in rigorous research, which supports standardization and best practices. For example, in a PICOT question regarding fall prevention in hospitalized elderly patients, internal evidence may include hospital fall incident data and staff experience, whereas external evidence would encompass recent research articles and clinical guidelines.

When conducting a search strategy, a key consideration is the choice between databanks and web-based search engines. Databanks such as CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and PubMed are specifically curated repositories focused on peer-reviewed, credible scientific literature. These sources offer high-quality, evidence-based information with peer-reviewed validation, making them invaluable for clinical research. However, searching within databanks can be time-consuming and may require subscription access and advanced search skills. Alternatively, web-based search engines like Google Scholar or general internet searches provide immediate access to a broad array of information, including gray literature, blogs, and non-peer-reviewed sources. While convenient, these sources can vary significantly in credibility and accuracy, which can pose risks for evidence-based decision making.

The strengths of databanks lie in their rigorously curated content, which ensures the reliability of information. Their advanced search options help users filter results efficiently based on criteria like publication date, peer-reviewed status, and article type. However, the limitations include restricted access without subscriptions, and potential difficulty in retrieving the latest or multidisciplinary evidence if the search parameters are inadequate. Conversely, web-based search engines offer quick, easy access to a wide pool of information, which can be useful for gaining initial insights or identifying gray literature. Nonetheless, the weakness of these sources is the lack of quality control, making it necessary for clinicians to critically appraise the retrieved information to ensure reliability.

In conclusion, both internal and external evidence are integral to forming a comprehensive PICOT search, with each offering unique benefits and limitations. Utilizing credible databanks such as CINAHL and PubMed enhances the reliability and relevance of evidence, though they require specific search skills and access, whereas web-based searches provide convenience but demand careful evaluation of sources. An optimal search strategy integrates both approaches, prioritizing high-quality evidence to inform clinical decisions effectively.

References

• Cummings, K., & McClure, K. (2019). Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice. Elsevier.
• Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2020). Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
• Greenhalgh, T. (2021). How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine. Wiley-Blackwell.