NRS 441v.11R Module 2 Capstone Project: Review of Literature

Write a paper (1,500-2,000 words) in which you analyze and appraise (15) articles. Pay particular attention to evidence that supports the problem, issue, or deficit, and your proposed solution.
Hint: The Topic 2 readings (Lecture notes)provide appraisal questions that will assist you to efficiently and effectively analyze each article. *Please see below*
You can use question from 10 questions for critical appraisal of quantitative research-SEE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE
Refer to "Sample Format for Review of Literature," "RefWorks," and "Topic 2: Checklist."- all attached gives an example of HOW THE PAPER SHOULD BE SET UP
Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, An abstract is not required.
You will be required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. 
Please see additional info below:
Reviewing the Literature and Applying Theory
Introduction
According to Stevens (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2011):
The critical appraisal of such knowledge for decision making is one of the most valuable skills that the clinician can possess in today's health care environment. Distinguishing the best evidence from unreliable evidence, and unbiased evidence from biased evidence, lies at the root of the impact that clinicians' actions will have in producing their intended outcomes (p.73).
Effective review and appraisal of literature requires that students:
· Weigh the quality of the evidence
· Rate the strength of the evidence
· Examine the knowledge gained through critical analysis (significance)
Distinguishing Sources of Knowledge
Evidence can be derived from numerous sources. The following are common sources from which evidence can be extracted and knowledge can be assessed for quality, strength, significance, and relevance to a specific population and a chosen problem:
· Research findings from quantitative/qualitative research and systematic reviews of research trials
· Clinical data and knowledge gained through practitioner experience and clinical audit of documentation
· Literature-articulating logic and theory
· Reports of patient concerns, choices, values, and clinical judgments made by experienced practitioners
Rapid, Critical Appraisal of Evidence
Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2011) describe an efficient and effective approach to examining literature for quality, strength, significance, and relevance. For each type or source of literature, a process is applied in which questions are posed to determine the preliminary usefulness and quality of each source.
Hint: Select the set of appraisal questions from the areas listed below which most closely fit the literature you are examining. Analyze and appraise each article using these appraisal questions as a guide.
Questions for Critical Appraisal of Quantitative Studies
· Why was the study done?
· What is the sample size?
· Are the measurements of major variables valid and reliable?
· How were the data analyzed?
· Were there any untoward events during the conduct of the study?
· How do the results fit with previous research in the area?
· What does this research mean for clinical practice?
Questions for Qualitative Studies
· Are the results valid/trustworthy and credible?
· Are implications of the research stated?
· What is the effect on the reader?
· What were the results of the study?
· How does the researcher identify study approach?
· Is the significance/importance of the study explicit?
· Is the sampling strategy clear and guided by study needs?
· Are data collection procedures clear?
· Are data analysis procedures described?
· How are specific findings presented?
· How are overall results presented?
· Will the results help [others] in caring for [their] patients?
Questions for Critical Appraisal of Case-Control Studies
· Are the results of the study valid?
· What are the results?
· Is an estimate of effect given? (Do the numbers add up?)
· Are there multiple comparisons of data?
· Is there any possibility of bias or confounding?
· Will the results help [others] in caring for [their] patients?
· Were the study patients similar to the population you have chosen?
· How do the results compare with previous studies?
· What are your patients/family's values and expectations for the outcome?
Questions for Randomized Controlled Trials
· Are the results of the study valid?
· Were the subjects randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups?
· Was the random assignment concealed from the individuals who were first enrolling subjects to the study?
· Were the subjects and providers kept blind to the study group?
· Were the reasons given to explain why subjects did not complete the study?
· Were the follow-up assessments conducted long enough to fully study the effects of the intervention?
· Were the subjects analyzed in the group to which they were randomly assigned?
· Was the control group appropriate?
· Were the instruments used to measure the outcomes valid and reliable?
· Were the subjects in each of the groups similar on demographic and baseline clinical variables?
· What are the results?
· Will the results help [others] in caring for [their] patients?
· Were all clinically important outcomes measured?
· What are the risks and benefits of the treatment?
· Is the treatment feasible in your clinical setting?
Questions for Systematic Reviews
· Are the results of the review valid?
· Are the studies contained in the review randomized control trials (RCTs)?
· Does the review include a detailed description of the search strategy to find all relevant studies?
· Does the review describe how validity of the individual studies were assessed?
· Were the results consistent across studies?
· Were individual patient data or aggregate data used in the analysis?
· What were the results?
· Will the results assist [others] in caring for [their] patients?
· Is the population of focus similar to the ones included in the review?
· Is it feasible to implement the findings in my practice setting?
· Were all clinically important outcomes considered, including risks and benefits of the treatment?
Review of Literature
A literature review is not a summary, but an organized synthesis of the results of the search. It is an organized presentation that defends the problem, proposed solution, and strategies. The synthesis of the literature review explains what is known or not known in the literature (the gap). According to LoBiondo-Wood and Haber (1998), characteristics of a relevant review of literature reflect critical thinking and include the following:
· Purposes of a literature review were met.
· Summary of literature is succinct and adequately represents the reviewed source.
· Critiquing (objective critical evaluation) reflects analysis and synthesis of material.
· Accepted critiquing criteria is applied to analyses for strengths, weaknesses, or limitations and conflicts or gaps in information as it relates directly and indirectly to the area of interest.
· Material is summarized rather than content being continually quoted.
· Critiques of studies are presented in a logical flow ending with a conclusion or synthesis of the reviewed material that reflects why the study or project is being performed (significance).
Hint: Refer to "Sample Format for Review of Literature," located within the Additional Resources folder in Canyon Connect.
Integration of Theory
The aim of nursing theory is to describe, explain, predict, or prescribe nursing practice. Theories are called descriptive theories when they describe characteristics found in a phenomenon; explanatory theories describe relationships among the dimensions of a phenomena; predictive theories predict relationships between the characteristics of the phenomena; and prescriptive theories address nursing therapeutics and the consequences of interventions.
Researchers may begin with a theory, conceptual model, or framework with which to frame the research findings. In other words, if the theory was true, would the finding make sense? Would it describe what is being done or explain the phenomena under study? Would it help predict a possible outcome or allow researchers to prescribe a particular treatment?
Nursing theory, like many other theories, is guided by the use of common language, identification of concepts, and definition of relationships and structured ideas. It attempts to guide how the profession of nursing conducts research (or inquiry), communicates practice, and provides a mechanism for predicting outcome of nursing practice. Theories can be tested by the researcher (Polit & Beck, 2006).
Change theory is often based in social and organizational psychology and focuses on application of systems theory. Often the focus is from clinical/social psychology that addresses attitude changes. Theories of change link outcomes and activities to explain how and why the desired change is expected to come about. Change theory usually has a rigorous plan for success, an evaluation of outcomes at various stages, and an explanation for why steps or the initiative worked or did not work.
There are several change theories: environmental change theory, social change theory, Kurt Lewin's change theory, behavioral change theory, systems and organizational change theories, to name a few. When creating an implementation plan, you must select a type of change theory to explain the desired change.
Conclusion
The key to a successful evidence-based project is to ensure that each step of the process is done well. Each step of the process builds off the other. If one step is not completed thoroughly, then following steps will be completed from poor work.