Blog

N3345 Transition to Professional Nursing Information Retrieval Paper

Overview: “Information Retrieval Paper – Part 2”

In Module 4 Assignment, you will continue to work on your Information Retrieval Paper. The focus of this Part 2 of the Information Retrieval Paper is to complete a critical analysis of each of your chosen articles.  Space is provided in this document for you to enter your analysis of each article using the correct APA format. Each week, you are using the template provided, do not create a new word document.

Performance Objectives 

• Critically analyze a research article for strengths and limitations.
• Use correct grammar, punctuation, and American Psychological Association (APA) format in writing professional papers.

Rubric

Use this rubric to guide your work on the Module 4 assignment, “Retrieval Paper – Part 2.”

Week 4 Application

Information Retrieval Paper: Part 2

In this week’s assignment, you will complete your Information Retrieval Paper. Review the outline for the entire assignment before you begin.

Part 2: Information Retrieval Paper – Part 2

Guidelines for Critical Analysis of an Article

You completed your article summaries in Module 3. The next step is to complete a critical analysis of each article.  For each article, ask yourself these questions when completing this section of your Information Retrieval Paper.

• What were the strengths of the research? Were a significant number of participants studied in an appropriate setting that can be applied in a broader sense?
• What were the limitations of the research? Was the environment controlled?
• What did the author leave out?
• Were barriers identified and addressed?
• Could the findings be implemented with purpose and expected outcomes?

Article 1

In the space below, post the reference for the first article in correct APA format.  If you made errors in formatting your reference for this article in Module 3, now is the time to make the appropriate changes so you do not make the same formatting error over and over.

Alshabanat, A., Otterstatter, M. C., Sin, D. D., Road, J., Rempel, C., Burns, J., van Eeden, S. F., & FitzGerald, J. M. (2017). Impact of a COPD comprehensive case management program on hospital length of stay and readmission rates. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 12, 961–971. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S124385

In the space below, write a one-paragraph critique of your first research article.  Apply correct APA format and scholarly writing style as you critique the article’s strengths and limitations related to your stated research question. Use 1 correctly cited in-text citation for full credit.

The Alshabanat et al. (2017) report on the impact of a COPD comprehensive case management program on hospital length of stay and readmission rates demonstrates several strengths. To begin, the authors employed a logical framework to structure the exploration in several sections including the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, limitations, and conclusion (Cathala & Moorley, 2018).  An in-depth review of the study reveals minimal grammatical errors, the well-outlined purpose of the study, a sound methodology, vividly outlined findings, and its associated discussion. Apart from the structure, this study demonstrates a causal effect relationship.

For instance, the authors conclude that COPD comprehensive case management program causes a reduction in readmission rates and length of hospital stay. Moreover, the number of participants, as well as the duration of follow-up of this retrospective study, exceeded that of any previously conducted randomized controlled trials overemphasizing the significance and validity of the results of this exploration (Alshabanat et al., 2017). A sample size of 1564 participants across five hospitals is representative of the study population and therefore the findings from this study can be generalized.

On the other hand, the limitations of this research were precisely noted and include its retrospective design with no control group. A Control group is a requirement for a true experiment to demonstrate causal effect relationships (Cathala & Moorley, 2018). The study also lacked the risk factor information for individual participants.  In addition, the study lacked medical history and pulmonary function data to assess the severity of COPD as well as the ability to systematically assess for mortality during the follow-up period. The environment was not effectively controlled. For instance, the authors could not evaluate the impact of alteration in medication prescribed postintervention.

The authors exhaustively covered all the recommended aspects of research except for a clear definition of the key concepts and the conceptual framework of the study. Meanwhile, barriers of the research were well discerned but not addressed. For instance, it was pinpointed out that COPD patients less effortlessly engage in self-management programs. Likewise, cognitive impairment and reduced literacy levels among the study population were identified as barriers.

The results of this study can be implemented and generalized on the rationale that the sample size was adequate, a sound and replicable research method, and a felicitous data analysis that yielded significant findings that met the objectives of the study. Furthermore, the authors contribute to the overall evidence-based clinical practice as they recommend the execution of a comprehensive case management plan for COPD patients in a healthcare setting after denoting its effectiveness.

Article 2

In the space below, post the reference for the second article in the correct APA format If you made errors in formatting your reference for this article in Module 3, now is the time to make the appropriate changes so you do not make the same formatting error over and over.

Long, H., Howells, K., Peters, S., & Blakemore, A. (2019). Does health coaching improve health-related quality of life and reduce hospital admissions in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 24(3), 515–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12366

In the space below, write a one-paragraph critique of your second research article.  Apply correct APA format and scholarly writing style as you critique the article’s strengths and limitations related to your stated research question. Use 1 correctly cited in-text citation for full credit.

The power of this study lies in the fact that it is the first review to systematically examine the consequences of health coaching on health-related quality of life and other health outcomes in people with COPD. As a result, the study significantly contributes to the overall body of scientific knowledge. In addition, being a combination of systemic review and meta-analysis, it is ranked highest in the hierarchy of evidence and therefore the findings of this research are fundamental for evidence-based clinical practice (Tawfik et al., 2019). An in-depth review of the research reveals the slightest grammatical errors and a logically organized study.

This logical flow makes it straightforward for the reader to understand the purpose of the research without going through the entire details. Additionally, the researchers organize their search for data using the PICO tool, a highly recommended tool for searching evidence-based clinical information. Similarly, in their data analysis, the authors assess the heterogeneity across studies and use the Cochrane tool for assessing the risk of bias to improve the quality of the research.  The sample size of 1959 from 10 randomized control trials across various nations further reflects the validity and reliability of the results of this study.

However, the authors mention several limitations of this research. The relatively short follow-up point employed in primary studies and the absence of concluding longer-term follow-ups is among the critical limitations outlined. Similarly, data to be included in the meta-analysis was only available for 6 studies. However, the environment was well controlled. The bias, as well as heterogeneity across studies, were dealt with using the Cochrane tool for assessing bias and chi-square test respectively.  The authors of this research cover all the bases of a systemic review as recommended by Tawfik et al. (2019).

The barriers of this research that were identified include the inability to tell the most appropriate component of health coaching and the inability to assess the intervention fidelity in most of the studies. Likewise, the diversified nature of professionals that offered health coaching made it difficult to draw robust conclusions. The authors do not address these barriers in this research although recommend future studies to look into them.

The findings of this research, being a combination of systemic review and meta-analysis can be implemented due to the highest level of evidence. However, for better outcomes, head coaching as a candidate intervention, its components, delivery modality, and its economic impact must be effectively executed.

Article 3

In the space below, post the reference for the third article in correct APA format. If you made errors in formatting your reference for this article in Module 3, now is the time to make the appropriate changes so you do not make the same formatting error over and over.

RajtakMuller, L., & Berger, M. (2018). Respiratory care education: A vital role for Respiratory Therapists in reducing readmissions in COPD patient population. Respiratory Care, 63(Suppl 10). http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/63/Suppl_10/3007422

In the space below, write a one-paragraph critique of your third research article.  Apply correct APA format and scholarly writing style as you critique the article’s strengths and limitations related to your stated research question. Use 1 correctly cited in-text citation for full credit.

The strengths of this research include the logical organization of the study with very few grammatical errors making it uncomplicated to comprehend. Similarly, being a case review involving only one healthcare setting, it was cheap to conduct (Al-Jundi & Sakka, 2017). An in-depth review of this research report reveals its power as contributes to change COPD patient management practices at Houston Methodist Hospital and therefore this research can be utilized to make predictions. The sample size was appropriate given the condition that the study was only conducted at one specific healthcare facility. However, the limitations of this study are innumerable.

To begin with, the study being a case series has the lowest level of evidence and therefore its applicability in clinical practice is limited. In addition, the study by virtue was designed as a practice improvement intervention hence rapid implementation. Consequently, the eligible patients were therefore not adequately followed up. The researchers further do not vividly outline the purpose of the study from the onset. The author further cannot be able to provide any causal effect relationships among the variables under study and therefore low levels of validity and reliability (Al-Jundi & Sakka, 2017). The environment in this study was not controlled. The confounding variables such as a change in prescribed medications, diversity of the personnel offering the respiratory therapy were not taken care of despite the implementation of a standardized care plan.

The author left out definitions of key concepts, an in-depth review of the existing literature and the conceptual model of this research as well as a clear outline of the methodology section. The barriers of this research on the other hand were identified. For instance, the researchers used the readmission predictor tool app without indicating its sensitivity and specificity. Similarly, the infidelity of the various interventions by different respiratory therapists was not described, and therefore difficult to draw a robust conclusion on the best respiratory education therapist. These barriers were not addressed. Nevertheless, the findings of this research despite being significant to Houston Methodist Hospital, cannot be implemented into practice due to low-level evidence. Subsequently, further research is required to demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of the results.

References

• Al-Jundi, A., & Sakka, S. (2017). Critical appraisal of clinical research. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR, 11(5), JE01–JE05. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/26047.9942
• Alshabanat, A., Otterstatter, M. C., Sin, D. D., Road, J., Rempel, C., Burns, J., van Eeden, S. F., & FitzGerald, J. M. (2017). Impact of a COPD comprehensive case management program on hospital length of stay and readmission rates. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 12, 961–971. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S124385
• Cathala, X., & Moorley, C. (2018). How to appraise quantitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 21(4), 99–101. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102996
• Tawfik, G. M., Dila, K. A. S., Mohamed, M. Y. F., Tam, D. N. H., Kien, N. D., Ahmed, A. M., & Huy, N. T. (2019). A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Tropical Medicine and Health, 47(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6

Submit this Assignment Document into Canvas for grading.