NR716 Week 7 Discussion | Appraising Systematic Reviews

ByDaniel Rossi Updated on

NR716 Week 7 Discussion | Appraising Systematic Reviews – Step-by-Step Guide With Example Solution

The first step before starting to write the NR716 Week 7 Discussion | Appraising Systematic Reviews is to understand the requirements of the assignment. The first step is to read the assignment prompt carefully to identify the topic, the length and format requirements. You should go through the rubric provided so that you can understand what is needed to score the maximum points for each part of the assignment. 

It is also important to identify the paper’s audience and purpose, as this will help you determine the tone and style to use throughout. You can then create a timeline to help you complete each stage of the paper, such as conducting research, writing the paper, and revising it to avoid last-minute stress before the deadline. After identifying the formatting style to be applied to the paper, such as APA, review its use, including writing citations and referencing the resources used. You should also review the formatting requirements for the title page and headings in the paper, as outlined by Chamberlain University.

How to Research and Prepare for NR716 Week 7 Discussion | Appraising Systematic Reviews

The next step in preparing for your paper is to conduct research and identify the best sources to use to support your arguments. Identify a list of keywords related to your topic using various combinations. The first step is to visit the Chamberlain University library and search through its database using the important keywords related to your topic. You can also find books, peer-reviewed articles, and credible sources for your topic from the Chamberlain University Library, PubMed, JSTOR, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Google Scholar. Ensure that you select the references that have been published in the last 5 years and go through each to check for credibility. Ensure that you obtain the references in the required format, such as APA, so that you can save time when creating the final reference list. 

You can also group the references according to their themes that align with the outline of the paper. Go through each reference for its content and summarize the key concepts, arguments and findings for each source. You can write down your reflections on how each reference connects to the topic you are researching. After the above steps, you can develop a strong thesis that is clear, concise and arguable. Next, create a detailed outline of the paper to help you develop headings and subheadings for the content. Ensure that you plan what point will go into each paragraph.

How to Write the Introduction for NR716 Week 7 Discussion | Appraising Systematic Reviews

The introduction of the paper is the most crucial part, as it helps provide the context of your work and determines whether the reader will be interested in reading through to the end. Begin with a hook, which will help capture the reader’s attention. You should contextualize the topic by offering the reader a concise overview of the topic you are writing about so that they may understand its importance. You should state what you aim to achieve with the paper. The last part of the introduction should be your thesis statement, which provides the main argument of the paper.

How to Write the Body for NR716 Week 7 Discussion | Appraising Systematic Reviews

The body of the paper helps you to present your arguments and evidence to support your claims. You can use headings and subheadings developed in the paper’s outline to guide you on how to organize the body. Start each paragraph with a topic sentence to help the reader know what point you will be discussing in that paragraph. Support your claims using the evidence collected from the research, and ensure that you cite each source properly using in-text citations. You should analyze the evidence presented and explain its significance, as well as how it relates to the thesis statement. You should maintain a logical flow between paragraphs by using transition words and a flow of ideas.

How to Write the In-text Citations for NR716 Week 7 Discussion | Appraising Systematic Reviews

In-text citations help readers give credit to the authors of the references they have used in their work. All ideas that have been borrowed from references, any statistics and direct quotes must be referenced properly. The name and date of publication of the paper should be included when writing an in-text citation. For example, in APA, after stating the information, you can put an in-text citation after the end of the sentence, such as (Smith, 2021). If you are quoting directly from a source, include the page number in the citation, for example (Smith, 2021, p. 15). Remember to also include a corresponding reference list at the end of your paper that provides full details of each source cited in your text. An example paragraph highlighting the use of in-text citations is as below:

“The integration of technology in nursing practice has significantly transformed patient care and improved health outcomes. According to Morelli et al. (2024), the use of electronic health records (EHRs) has streamlined communication among healthcare providers, allowing for more coordinated and efficient care delivery. Furthermore, Alawiye (2024) highlights that telehealth services have expanded access to care, particularly for patients in rural areas, thereby reducing barriers to treatment.”

How to Write the Conclusion for NR509 Week 1 Discussion: Social Determinants of Health

When writing the conclusion of the paper, start by restating your thesis, which helps remind the reader what your paper is about. Summarize the key points of the paper by restating them. Discuss the implications of your findings and your arguments. Conclude with a call to action that leaves a lasting impression on the reader or offers recommendations.

How to Format the Reference List for NR509 Week 1 Discussion: Social Determinants of Health

The reference helps provide the reader with the complete details of the sources you cited in the paper. The reference list should start with the title “References” on a new page. It should be aligned center and bolded. The references should be organized in an ascending order alphabetically, and each should have a hanging indent. If a source has no author, it should be alphabetized by the title of the work, ignoring any initial articles such as “A,” “An,” or “The.” If you have multiple works by the same author, list them in chronological order, starting with the earliest publication. 

Each reference entry should include specific elements depending on the type of source. For books, include the author’s last name, first initial, publication year in parentheses, the title of the book in italics, the edition (if applicable), and the publisher’s name. For journal articles, include the author’s last name, first initial, publication year in parentheses, the title of the article (not italicized), the title of the journal in italics, the volume number in italics, the issue number in parentheses (if applicable), and the page range of the article. For online sources, include the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) or the URL at the end of the reference. An example reference list is as follows:

References

Morelli, S., Daniele, C., D’Avenio, G., Grigioni, M., & Giansanti, D. (2024). Optimizing telehealth: Leveraging Key Performance Indicators for enhanced telehealth and digital healthcare outcomes (Telemechron Study). Healthcare, 12(13), 1319. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12131319

Alawiye, T. (2024). The impact of digital technology on healthcare delivery and patient outcomes. E-Health Telecommunication Systems and Networks, 13, 13-22. 10.4236/etsn.2024.132002.

NR716 Week 7 Discussion | Appraising Systematic Reviews Instructions

Purpose  

The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate your understanding of the review and appraisal of a systematic review that includes systematic review with meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis, and to use skills in the appraisal of research studies in your future role as a DNP-prepared nurse. Importantly, you will review the background and intention of the systematic review research study. As you work to find solutions to practice problems, critical review and appraisal of systematic reviews are required. Have a look at NR716 Week 7 Quiz | Statistics.

Instructions  

Using the practice problem, you selected in NR715, continue your search and appraisal of evidence by analyzing one systematic review research study. This research study should not be one that was used in NR715. Address the following in the discussion:

  1. Appraise the systematic review research study using the Johns Hopkins Research Appraisal Tool. Transfer your findings to the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool.
  2. Analyze the evidence summary tool of the research study to address the following in the discussion:
    1. Determine whether the research design—systematic review, systematic review with meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis —answers the research question. Explain your rationale.
    2. Based on information in the published study, explain if the search was comprehensible and reproducible.
    3. Based on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool, determine if there is an evidence-based intervention you might consider for translation to practice in a practice change project. Explain your rationale.
    4. Based on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool Column Observable Measures, consider if you would use this systematic review research study as support for your selected practice problem. Explain your rationale.

Include your completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool and permalink to the selected research study. 

Please click on the following link to review the DNP Discussion Guidelines on the Student Resource Center program page:

  • Link (webpage): DNP Discussion Guidelines.
Course Outcomes  

This discussion enables the student to meet the following course outcomes:  

  1. Evaluate selected statistical methods for the purposes of critiquing research to complement the critical appraisal of evidence. (POs 3, 5, 9)
  2. Analyze research and non-research data for the purposes of critical appraisal and judgment of evidence for translation into practice. (POs 1, 3, 5, 7, 9)
  3. Synthesize high-level research and non-research evidence relevant to practice problems. (POs 1, 3, 5, 9)

NR716 Week 7 Discussion | Appraising Systematic Reviews Example

Appraising Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews are a significant source of evidence for identifying solutions to various practice problems. They employ extensive searches to locate relevant published or unpublished research sources on a particular topic and synthesize the information in these sources to draw a conclusion. This discussion presents an appraisal of a systematic review related to the diabetes practice problem.

The effects of Diabetes Self-management Education on glycemic control in Latino Adults with type 2 diabetes, as reported by Hildebrand et al. (2020), is a selected systematic review with a meta-analysis. I utilized the Johns Hopkins research appraisal tool on this systematic review source to contribute to addressing the diabetes practice problem.

The research question for the selected study is: Is diabetes self-management education effective in reducing glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels in adult Latinos with type 2 diabetes? The research design adequately answers the research question. The search strategies and methods used to conduct the search were directed to findings that would answer the research question. More so, the results and discussion addressed the research question in that 23 RCT and Quasi-experimental studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected. The results of these studies were analyzed and discussed. The findings were that culturally tailored DSME programs effectively reduce HbA1c levels among Latino adults with type 2 diabetes.       

The search in this research source was comprehensible and reproducible. Based on the information from the published study, the search was comprehensive and reproducible since the key search terms were clearly stated. The key search terms included diabetes, type 2 diabetes mellitus, self-management education, self-care, A1C, Latino, Latina, Hispanic, Spanish-speaking, and Mexican American. The search terms were combined using Boolean operators, truncation, and search strategies to meet each database’s specifications.

Additionally, multiple databases were used to locate studies in the search. The databases used included Medline, PsycINFO, WOS, Cochrane, PubMed, and CINAHL. Furthermore, the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sources identified in the search were succinctly indicated. The eligibility/inclusion criteria included being an RCT or Quasi-experimental study, with study participants exclusively Latino adults with type 2 diabetes, and the control group not having any DSME component.     

The evidence-based intervention I might consider for translation into practice in a practice change project is diabetes self-management education and support. Inappropriate or ineffective diabetes self-management is one of the challenges facing type 2 diabetes patients, and a major cause of diabetes complications, undesirable patient outcomes and poor quality of life (Reeger et al., 2022). From the evidence summary, DSME has shown effectiveness in improving diabetes self-management behaviors, reducing diabetes complications, and enhancing patient outcomes for diabetes patients. Therefore, I would consider it in a practice change project.

Finally, based on the observable measures from the evidence summary tool, I would use this systematic review to support my practice change project. The systematic review has produced strong and high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of diabetes self-management interventions in improving diabetes self-management efficacy and behavior, as well as reducing glycemic levels. Additionally, the systematic review with meta-analysis incorporated multiple Randomized Controlled Trials that have compared the effectiveness of DSME to routine patient education over time. RCTs are the highest level of evidence, and since the systematic review included RCTs, it is suitable for supporting the practice change project.  

The permalink to the selected study is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8087170/.

References

Hildebrand, J. A., Billimek, J., Lee, J. A., Sorkin, D. H., Olshansky, E. F., Clancy, S. L., & Evangelista, L. S. (2020). Effect of diabetes self-management education on glycemic control in Latino adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 103(2), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.09.009

Regeer, H., van Empelen, P., Bilo, H. J., de Koning, E. J., & Huisman, S. D. (2022). Change is possible: How increased patient activation is associated with favorable changes in well-being, self-management and health outcomes among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective longitudinal study. Patient Education and Counseling, 105(4), 821-827. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217771

John Hopkins Individual Summary Tool

 Practice Question: Is the DSME intervention effective in reducing glycemic levels in Latino adults with type 2 diabetes? 

Date: 11th February

  Article Number    Author and Date    Evidence Type  Sample, Sample Size, SettingFindings That Help Answer the EBP Question  Observable Measures    Limitations  Evidence Level, Quality
102(3)Hildebrand, J. A., Billimek, J., Lee, J. A., Sorkin, D. H., Olshansky, E. F., Clancy, S. L., & Evangelista, L. S. (2020).Systematic review with Meta-analysis23 randomized control trials and quasi-experimental trials on the effect of DSME in reducing glycemic levels for Latino adults with T2DM    The findings show that diabetes self-management education is effective in reducing glycemic levels in adults with type 2 diabetes. The review also found that culturally tailored DSME interventions are best for reducing HbA1c levels.   The article’s main aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of diabetes self-management education in reducing glycemic levels among Latino adults with type 2 diabetes. The analysis revealed that heterogeneous studies demonstrate improvement in glycemic control among intervention groups following the intervention, indicating that DSME is effective in the study population.The number of RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria was limited. Only peer-reviewed studies were included, which means essential unpublished work may have been left out. The specifics of the interventions were not considered.Hildebrand et al. (2020) was appraised at level II evidence, Grade A quality. Despite the robustness of the search and inclusion/exclusion criteria, the study’s results have limited generalizability. 

Reference list

Hildebrand, J. A., Billimek, J., Lee, J. A., Sorkin, D. H., Olshansky, E. F., Clancy, S. L., & Evangelista, L. S. (2020). Effect of diabetes self-management education on glycemic control in Latino adults with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 103(2), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.09.009