Homework Lance
Name two difference methods for evaluating evidence. Compare and contrast these two methods.
There are many ways to evaluate research-based evidence. Rychetnik et al (2002) states that in order to receive a proper evaluation of research, one must consider if the level of evidence is sufficient to determine the results. Was the outcome conducive to what the researchers were looking for? Collecting evidence during research can be tricky, especially if researchers have to coordinate the project and individuals are collecting and compiling evidence. The design of the study for collecting evidence has to meet the design for a particular outcome. Simply put, the design has to be particularly geared toward finding a particular outcome.
Another method for evaluating research evidence suggested by Rycheknik et al (2002) is that the research evidence has to be transferable to the population studied. Can the results be applied to the studied population, and will the results make a difference? I suppose the only way to determine that is to apply the results and conduct another study years down the road. But in the meantime, applying evidential outcomes to a particular population should be conducive with affecting the population with a positive impact to the current situation. In medicine, when evaluating a particular study, it should be done with the intention of improvement of provided care or increase positive outcomes without causing more injury or suffering to the patient. Any evidence-based study should show positive results in the study before being deemed as a success.
Resource:
Rychetnik, L., Frommer, M., Hawe, P., &Shiell, A. (2002). Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. Journal of Epidemial Community Health, 56(119-127). Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732065/pdf/v056p00119.pdf
ANSWER 2
The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care: an illustrated example in oncology nursing. This model of EBP improves the quality of patient care and helps control healthcare costs. According to Brown, The Iowa Model can help nurses and other healthcare providers translate research findings into clinical practice while improving outcomes for patients (2014).” Which is an enormous concern in the healthcare industry with every rising healthcare cost and efforts to decrease time, money and resources.
The steps include the following: identifying the problem, determining if the problem or issue is of high priority, develop a team that will help develop, evaluate, and implement the EBP change, gather and critique pertinent research related to the desired practice change, critique the available studies to determine whether the study with the tested intervention is scientifically sound, decide whether sufficient research exists to implement a practice change, implement the intervention into a pilot practice change (Brown, 2014).
The Triad Model is a structure that is propose for EBP training includes three participants: the academic faculty member, the clinical supervisor, and the student. This model considers all participants as co-learners throughout the process. The main goals of the triad model are “(a) to increase the use of EBP among the three members and (b) to explicitly train academic–clinical collaboration (Rangamani al et, 2016)”. With that being said, the outcome of improving ongoing communication among the three members may which leads to increased use of EBP. Thus, promoting quality of care to the public and theoretically to facilitate clinical research (Rangamani al et, 2016).
References
Brown, C. G. (2014). The Iowa Model of Evidence-Based Practice to Promote Quality Care: An Illustrated Example in Oncology Nursing. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 18(2), 157-159. doi:10.1188/14.CJON.157-159
Rangamani, G., Coppens, P., Greenwald, M., &Keintz, C. (2016). Collaborative Methods for Training Evidence-Based Practice: The Triad Model. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science & Disorders, 43139-153.
ANSWER 3
Secondly, does the study address bias? This is important in research as bias can be introduced by mere chance or from the study method. While “random error does not influence the results in any particular direction” (Young & Solomon, 2009) it can skew results. On the other hand, bias influencing the study method will negate results entirely, making the study useless as a reference point.
Additionally, Cohort Studies back up and further validate the initial research. Locating and evaluating these follow-up studies will lend additional credence to the initial source or provide contrasting evidence.
References
Young, J., & Solomon, M. (2009, June). How to Critically Appraise an Article. Retrieved from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/706399
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings