NUR 720: Levels of Evidence Evaluation Table (EET) Assignment

NUR 720: Levels of Evidence Evaluation Table (EET) Assignment

NUR 720: Levels of Evidence Evaluation Table (EET) Assignment

Assignment Guidelines

Evidence Evaluation Table (EET)

The purpose of this database is to organize the evidence that you find related to the interventions for your clinical foreground question. This week, you are to add data to column 9 (levels of evidence) and add data in the last columns. In subsequent weeks, you will more articles (rows) as you gather quality recent studies for your practice synthesis paper in Week 9, and at least 16 rows by Week 13.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Complete columns 9 through 11 for your four quality, recent (five years or newer), published, peer-reviewed works.

Level of evidence
Appraisal
Usefulness

Submit your completed Excel file to the assignment link provided.
Submission

Submit your assignment and review full grading criteria on the Assignment 7.1: Levels of Evidence Evaluation Table (EET) page.
Week 7: Levels of Evidence

There is one lesson this week: Levels of Evidence. Activities include readings, a learning module, a quiz, and a written assignment. Review your course syllabus for a list of all items due this week.

Again this week, you will work toward completing your NUR720 Project by further developing your appraisal skills.

EBP Flow Chart highlighting Step 4. Steps: 1=ID Problem; 2=Question; 3=Search; 4=Appraise; 5=Synthesize; 6=IRB Process; 7=Assess Organization; 8=ID Framework, 9=Future Coursework Design; 10=Future Coursework Implement; 11=Evaluate; 12=Disseminate.
Lesson 1: Levels of Evidence

This lesson focuses on determining the strongest level of evidence for your particular PICO(T) question.
Learning Outcomes

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

Determine the level of evidence of various published works.
Determine the strongest level of evidence for your own PICO(T) question.

Before attempting to complete your learning activities for this week, review the following learning materials:
Learning Materials

Read the following in your Evidence-based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice textbook:

Chapter 3, “Best Evidence to Answer Different Clinical Questions” (Table 3.2, p. 59)
Chapter 4, “Critically Appraising Knowledge for Clinical Decision Making”

These chapters discuss the appraisal of evidence.

If you find you need more information about levels of evidence and appraising research, here is the catalog record for the e-book: Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice: Models and Guidelines.Links to an external site.

Chapter 6 discusses Evidence Appraisal: Research. This chapter is extremely helpful if you need guidance regarding types of research.

Obtain and be prepared to read the following for Practice Quiz 7.1: Identifying Levels of Evidence: Check Your Understanding:

Hudspeth, R. (2011). Avoiding regulatory complaints when treating chronic pain patients with opioids. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 23(10), 515–520. Retrieved from BU’s Cullom-Davis Library.Links to an external site.
Stenner, K., Carey, N., & Courtenay, M. (2012). Prescribing for pain—how do nurses contribute? A national questionnaire survey. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(23–24), 3335–3345. Retrieved from BU’s Cullom-Davis Library.Links to an external site.

Obtain and be prepared to read the following for Quiz 7.2: Identifying Levels of Evidence:

Berthelsen, C. B., & Kristensson, J. (2015). Spouses’ involvement in older patients’ fast-track programmes during total hip replacement using case management intervention. A study protocol of the SICAM-trial. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(5), 1169–1180. Retrieved from BU’s Cullom-Davis Library.Links to an external site.
Griffioen, M. A., et al. (2017). Acute pain characteristics in patients with and without chronic pain following lower extremity injury. Pain Management Nursing, 18(1), 33–41. Retrieved from PubMed.Links to an external site. (This is the same article used last week.)
Kumbhare, S., Pleasants, R., Ohar, J., & Strange, C. (2016). Characteristics and prevalence of asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap in the United States. American Thoracic Society, 13(6), 803–810. Retrieved from ATS Journals.Links to an external site. (Note: This is the same article used last week.)
Manworren, R. C. B. (2015). Multimodal pain management and the future of a personalized medicine approach to pain. Journal of the Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (AORN J), 101, 308–314. Retrieved from BU’s Cullom-Davis Library.Links to an external site.
Thomas, M. L., Elliott, J. E., Rao, S. M., Fahey, K. F., Paul, S. M., & Miaskowski, C. (2012). A randomized, clinical trial of education or motivational-interviewing–based coaching compared to usual care to improve cancer pain management. Oncology Nursing Forum, 39(1), 39–49. Retrieved from Oncology Nursing Forum.Links to an external site.
Vogel, N. P., Appel, S. J., & Winker, G. (2018). Improving HPV vaccination rates among young males in rural area of the United States. The Nurse Practitioner, 43(1). Retrieved from BU’s Cullom-Davis Library.Links to an external site. (Note: this is the same article used last week)

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Assignment 7.1: Levels of Evidence Evaluation Table (EET) Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
ID Level of Evidence:
view longer description

6 to >5 pts
Meets Expectations
Correctly identifies the level of evidence for all four articles as supported by type of research.
5 to >4 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations
Correctly identifies the level of evidence for three articles of the four articles as supported by type of research.
4 to >3 pts
Barely Meets Expectations
Correctly identifies the level of evidence for two of the four articles as supported by type of research.
3 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Does not correctly ID the level of evidence for two of the four articles; or, does not complete LOE column in table with type and level of research; or, does not include four articles.

/ 6 pts
Completeness and Feedback:
view longer description

9 to >8 pts
Meets Expectations
Incorporated feedback and corrected errors. Table complete with PICO(T) in correct format.
8 to >7 pts
Nearly Meets Expectations
Attempted to incorporate feedback, minor errors remain. Table complete with PICO(T) in correct format.
7 to >5 pts
Barely Meets Expectations
Did not incorporate feedback. Table complete but with errors. PICO(T) in correct format.
5 to >0 pts
Does Not Meet Expectations
Blank sections (columns or rows) remain. Table incomplete, or incorrect format of the PICO(T).

/ 9 pts
Total Points: 0

Choose a submission type