NURS350 Assignment: Literature Search Rapid Critical Appraisal and Summary

NURS350 Assignment: Literature Search Rapid Critical Appraisal and Summary

NURS350 Assignment: Literature Search Rapid Critical Appraisal and Summary

For this assignment, you will locate a minimum of four research articles related to the topic and PICOT questions that you developed in Week 2. The articles must be published in the last five years (2014 to the present). Two articles must be quantitative, and two articles must be qualitative.

Articles used for one assignment cannot be used for the other assignments. (Students should find new research articles for each assignment.)

The selected articles should be original research articles. Review articles, meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, and systemic review should not be used.

Mixed-methods studies should not be used.

There are two parts to this assignment.

Part 1: Complete a Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklist chart for each research article (4 total).

Download the Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklist here (PDF—use with Adobe Acrobat)

Download the Rapid Critical Appraisal Checklist here (Word document)

Part II: Write a summary (2–3 pages)

Compare and contrast the similarities and differences among the four research articles.

Submit the 4 completed CHECKLISTS along with your summary.

You should:

Use current APA Style to format your paper and to cite your sources.

Review the rubric for further information on how your assignment will be graded.

Clinicians often witness impressive treatment results in practice and may wish to pursue research to formally explore their anecdotal experiences. The potential to further new knowledge both within the profession and to the greater healthcare system is compelling. An obvious next step for a practitioner considering research is to connect with experienced researchers to convey their idea for a study, who may in turn ask, “What is your research question?” With limited understanding of how to respond, this interaction may result in the first and last experience these clinicians will have with the research community.

It has been estimated that between 1% and 7% of the chiropractic profession in Canada is engaged in research. ^, Arguably, this low engagement could be the result of practitioners’ perceived importance of research and levels of research literacy and capacity. However, increasing demands for evidence-based approaches across the health system puts pressure on all clinicians to base their decisions on the best available scientific evidence. Lack of clinician representation in research has the probable effect of limiting growth and new developments for the profession. Furthermore, lack of clinician involvement in research complicates the transfer of study findings into practical settings.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research describes integrated knowledge translation as a process that involves collaboration between researchers and knowledge users at all stages of a research project. This necessitates involvement of clinicians to help in forming a research question, interpreting the results, and moving research findings into practice. This shared effort between clinicians and researchers increases the likelihood that research initiatives will be relevant to practice. Conversely, it has been reported that there is a growing communication gap between clinicians and academics in chiropractic.  Clinicians have important practice-related questions to ask, but many may lack the ability to map out their research strategy, specifically in communicating their question in a manner required to develop a research protocol.