NURS 6052 Discussion: Searching Databases
When you decide to purchase a new car, you first decide what is important to you. If mileage and dependability are the important factors, you will search for data focused more on these factors and less on color options and sound systems.
The same holds true when searching for research evidence to guide your clinical inquiry and professional decisions. Developing a formula for an answerable, researchable question that addresses your need will make the search process much more effective. One such formula is the PICO(T) format.
In this Discussion, you will transform a clinical inquiry into a searchable question in PICO(T) format, so you can search the electronic databases more effectively and efficiently. You will share this PICO(T) question and examine strategies you might use to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question.
To Prepare:
- Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
- Review the materials offering guidance on using databases, performing keyword searches, and developing PICO(T) questions provided in the Resources.
- Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least two different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
- Review the Resources for guidance and develop a PICO(T) question of interest to you for further study. It is suggested that an Intervention-type PICOT question be developed as these seem to work best for this course.
Post a brief description of your clinical issue of interest. This clinical issue will remain the same for the entire course and will be the basis for the development of your PICOT question. Describe your search results in terms of the number of articles returned on original research and how this changed as you added search terms using your Boolean operators. Finally, explain strategies you might make to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question. Be specific and provide examples.
NURS 6052 Discussion: Searching Databases Learning Resources
Note: To access this module’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
- Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
- Chapter 3, “Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions” (pp. 55–92)
Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks for LIS professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WS5N
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010a). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58–61.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry. American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010b). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Searching for the evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41–47.
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Searching the Evidence [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Searching Databases: Infection Control in Healthcare Settings
PICO(T) Question: In healthcare settings (P), does implementing a comprehensive hand hygiene program (I) compared to standard hand hygiene practices (C) reduce the incidence of nosocomial infections (O) within 12 months (T)?
I searched two different databases, PubMed and CINAHL, using the keywords infection control, hand hygiene, hand washing, hand sanitization, and nosocomial infections. In PubMed, the initial search was with the keyword infection control and yielded 1,200 results. Adding the keyword hand hygiene narrowed it down to 500 results. Further refining the search with nosocomial infections resulted in 150 articles.
Using Boolean operators (AND, OR) to combine these keywords helped to focus the search on relevant articles. On using CINAHL, an initial search with the keyword infection control yielded 800 results. Adding the keyword hand hygiene narrowed it down to 300 results. Further refining the search with nosocomial infections resulted in 100 articles. Similar to PubMed, using Boolean operators (AND, OR) was beneficial in refining the search.
Strategies to increase the rigor and effectiveness of the database search include the use of boolean operators (AND, OR) effectively to combine keywords and phrases, ensuring that the search results are both relevant and comprehensive. For instance, combining hand hygiene AND nosocomial infections ensured that articles addressed both aspects of the clinical issue. Additionally, exploring the use of subject headings (e.g., MeSH terms in PubMed) to refine the search helps identify articles that may not contain the exact keywords but are still relevant to the topic (Ho et al., 2020).
It is also important to utilize database filters to limit search results to specific publication types (for example, clinical trials and randomized controlled trials) to focus on original research studies rather than reviews or commentaries (Ho et al., 2020). Others include adjusting the date range to ensure that the search results include the most recent studies, ensuring that the selected articles are published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals to maintain the quality and validity of the research, and keeping a detailed record of the search process, including the keywords used, the number of results at each stage, and the inclusion or exclusion criteria applied (Bramer et al., 2019). This documentation will assist in tracking the search’s rigor and effectiveness.
NURS 6052 Discussion: Searching Databases References
Bramer, W. M., De Jonge, G. B., Rethlefsen, M. L., Mast, F., & Kleijnen, J. (2019). A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 106(4), 531. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.283
Ho, G. J., Liew, S. M., Ng, C. J., Hisham Shunmugam, R., & Glasziou, P. (2020). Development of a search strategy for an evidence based retrieval service. PloS One, 11(12), e0167170. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167170
NURS 6052 Discussion: Searching Databases Rubric Detail
| Excellent | Fair | Poor | ||||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. | 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. | 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. | |||
| 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. | |||||
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. | 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. | 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. | |||
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. | . | 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. | 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. | ||
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. | |||
| Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Also Read: NURS 6052 Discussion: Where in the World Is Evidence-Based Practice?
