All posts by Martha "Marty" Farrar Highfield PhD RN

It is difficult to be simple! Research can be understood when explained well. That's my aim.
Disseminating findings, EBP, evidence based practice, research

Creation & Use of Evidence: Different!

Leave a comment

The difference between research and evidence-based practice (EBP) can sometimes be confusing, but the contrast between them is sharp.  I think most of the confusion comes because those implementing both processes measure outcomes.  Here are differences:

  • RESEARCH :  The process of research (formulating an answerable question, designing project methods, collecting and analyzing the data, and interpreting themagnifyingGlassmeaning of results) is creating knowledge (AKA creating research evidence).  A research project that has been written up IS evidence that can be used in practice.  The process of research is guided by the scientific method.
  • EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE:   EBP is using existing knowledge (AKA using EBPresearch evidence) in practice.  While researchers create new knowledge,

The creation of evidence obviously precedes its application to practice.  Something must be made before it can be used.  Research obviously precedes the application of research findings to practice.  When those findings are applied to practice, then we say the practice is evidence-based.

A good analogy for how research & EBP differ & work together can be seen in autos.

CreateCar
Creating a car!

 

  • Designers & factory workers create new cars.

    UseCar
    Using a car!
  • Drivers use existing cars that they choose according to preferences and best judgments about safety.

 

 

CRITICAL THINKING:   1) Why is the common phrase “evidence-based research” unclear?  Should you use it?  Why or why not?  2) What is a clinical question you now face. (e.g., C.Diff spread; nurse morale on your unit; managing neuropathic pain) and think about how the Stetler EBP model at http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/resource/pdf/83.pdf  might help.  Because you will be measuring outcomes, then why is this still considered EBP.

Paradigm, reading research, research, Research design

What IS research!!??

Leave a comment

WHAT IS RESEARCH?   Take < three minutes to check out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v50ct9xJVKE .  Listen for what research is and 2 basic ways to approach the man-person-legs-grass.jpganswers to a research question: “Why is the sky blue?”

CRITICAL THINKING:  What is a recent problem you’ve experienced in clinical practice?  Write out a positivist question and an interpretist research question related to that same clinical problem.

evidence based practice, Evidence hierarchy

Dispelling the nice or naughty myth: retrospective observational study of Santa Claus.

2 Comments

Naughty NiceGo to full article

Abstract

“OBJECTIVE:  To determine which factors influence whether Santa Claus will visit children in hospital on Christmas Day.

DESIGN:  Retrospective observational study.

SETTING:  Paediatric wards in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS:  186 members of staff who worked on the paediatric wards (n=186) during Christmas 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:  Presence or absence of Santa Claus on the paediatric ward GIFTSduring Christmas 2015. This was correlated with rates of absenteeism from primary school, conviction rates in young people (aged 10-17 years), distance from hospital to North Pole (closest city or town to the hospital in kilometres, as the reindeer flies), and contextual socioeconomic deprivation (index of multiple deprivation).

RESULTS:  Santa Claus visited most of the paediatric wards in all four countries: 89% in England, 100% in Northern Ireland, 93% in Scotland, and 92% in Wales. The odds of him not visiting, however, were significantly higher for paediatric wards in areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation in England (odds ratio 1.31 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.71) in England, 1.23 (1.00 to 1.54) in the UK). In contrast, there was no correlation with school absenteeism, conviction rates, or distance to the North Pole.

CONCLUSION:  The results of this study dispel the traditional belief that Santa Claus rewards children based on how nice or naughty they have been in the previous year. Santa Claus is less likely to visit children in hospitals in the most deprived areas. Potential solutions include a review of Santa’s contract or employment of local Santas in poorly represented region.”  Park et al. (2016).BMJ. 2016 Dec 14;355:i6355. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i6355.

How would you translate this into practice?   Questions to help you with this endeavor:   Where does this retrospective, observational research fall on the evidence hierarchy?  EBNIs it quantitative or qualitative research?  Experimental or non-experimental research? How generalizable is this research? What are the risks,resources, and readiness of people in potentially using the findings (Stetler & Marram, 1996; Stetler, 2001)?   What might happen if you try to apply the abstract information to practice without reading the full article?  Do you think the project done in Europe is readily applicable to America?  What would be the next level of research that you might undertake to better confirm these findings?
Enjoy your holiday season! -Dr H
Evidence based nursing, evidence based practice, Evidence hierarchy

“Here Comes Santa Claus?” What IS the Evidence?

1 Comment

It’s that time of year again! Enjoy this illustration of how to use one model in applying best, available evidence to practice. Have fun and a merry and bright season.

Martha "Marty" Farrar Highfield PhD RN's avatarDiscovering Your Inner Scientist

How strong is the evidence regarding our holiday Santa Claus (SC) practices? And what are the opportunities on this SC topic for new descriptive, correlation, or experimental research?  Although existing evidence generally supports SC, in the end we may conclude, “the most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see” (Church, as cited in Newseum, n.d.).santa3

If you want to know the answers, check out: Highfield, M.E.F. (2011).  Here comes Santa Claus: What’s the evidence? Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal, 33(4), 354-6. doi: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.csun.edu/10.1097/TME.0b013e318234ead3   Using bona fide published work, the article shows you how to evaluate the strength of evidence and how to apply it to practice.   You can request a full-text for your personal use from your library or from the author via www.researchgate.net/home .  

Critical thinking: Check out this related research study with fulltext available through PubMed: Black Pete…

View original post 70 more words

Clinical practice guidelines, Disseminating findings, Evidence based nursing, Publishing, quality improvement, RCT, research, School papers, Writing

Write Away!

Leave a comment

Want to know the standardized format for writing up your research study, QI report, Writing1case study, systematic review, or clinical practice guideline?    Check out these standardized reporting guidelines: http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/

Of course you should always give priority to the author instructions for the particular journal in which you want to publish, but most adhere generally or fully to these standardized guides.

Write away!

Data collection, Questionnaires, research, research methods, Survey

“Please answer….” (cont.)

Leave a comment

What do people HATE about online surveys?   If you want to improve your response rates, check out SurveyMonkey Eric V’s (May Mail2017)  Eliminate survey fatigue: Fix 3 things your respondents hate 

For more info: Check out my earlier post “Please Answer!”

Evidence based nursing, evidence based practice, Evidence hierarchy, Literature review, Novice to Expert, Professional Nursing, Qualitative research, research

Missing in Action: The Pyramid foundation

Leave a comment

Last post I commented on the potentially misleading terms of Filtered & Unfiltered Filtered Unfiltered jpgresearch.  My key point?  Much so-called “unfiltered research” has been screened (filtered) carefully through peer-review before publication; while some “filtered research”  may have been ‘filtered’ only by a single expert & be out of date. If we use the terms filtered and unfiltered we should not be naive about their meanings. (Pyramid source:  Wikimedia Commons )

This week, I address what I see as a 2nd problem with this evidence based medicine pyramid.  That is, missing in action from it are descriptive, correlation, & in-depth qualitative research are not mentioned.  Where are they?  This undercuts the EBM pyramid as a teaching tool and also (intentionally or not) denigrates the necessary basic type of research on which stronger levels of evidence are built.  That foundation of the pyramid, called loosely “background information,” includes such basic, essential research.

Ask an ExpertYou may have heard of Benner’s Novice to Expert  theory.  Benner used in-depth, qualitative interview descriptions as data to generate her theory.  Yet that type of research evidence is missing from medicine’s pyramid!  Without a clear foundation the pyramid will just topple over.  Better be clear!

I recommend substituting (or at least adding to your repertoire) an Evidence Based NURSING (EBN) pyramid.  Several versions exist & one is below that includes some of the previously missing research!  This one includes EBP & QI projects, too! Notice the explicit addition of detail to the below pyramid as described at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfRbuzzKjcM.EBN

Critical thinking:  #1List some EBM & EBN pyramid differences.  #2 Figure out where on the hierarchy this project would go: Crowell, J., OʼNeil, K., & Drager, L. (2017). Project HANDS: A bundled approach to increase short peripheral catheter dwell time. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 40(5), 274-280. doi: 10.1097/NAN.0000000000000237.   1st use medicine’s EBM pyramid; & then 2nd use nursing’s EBN pyramid.  #3 Label Crowell et al.’s study as filtered or unfiltered and explain what you mean by that.

For more info:  Watch the YouTube video at the link above.

Cochrane, Evidence based nursing, evidence based practice, History of research, Literature review

Filtered vs. Unfiltered: What do these terms mean?

1 Comment

Are we talking cigarettes?  water? coffee? other?   Yes, other.   In this case about what is sometimes called “filtered” or “unfiltered” literature in the evidence-based medicine pyramid of research evidence.  (I have more than one issue with this particular pyramid as a representation of all evidence, but for right now let’s look at filtered information & unfiltered information.  Pyramid source:  Wikimedia Commons  
Filtered Unfiltered jpg

Filtered is considered stronger–meaning that we can be more confident that literature from this category better  supports cause and effect.  I agree.

Unfiltered evidence (usually single studies etc) is considered weaker–meaning that we must be more cautious about its accuracy in representing reality.  I agree.

But, “Is unfiltered information really unfiltered?”  No filtering at all? My qualified answer is, “No.”   Argue with me if you like.

My opinion: If the “unfiltered” article is a primary source, research study that has strong design and is published in a peer-review journal then it has been filtered by multiple, expert peer reviewers just to make it to publication.

Thus, when discussing filtered vs. unfiltered one should be very clear on what those terms mean and do not mean.

Critical Thinking: When filtered literature (systematic reviews & critically appraised topics & articles) has been filtered by one individual, is that superior to unfiltered literature in terms of introducing bias?  What if the “filtered” evidence is 7 years old and a primary, “unfiltered” source(s) from this year has different findings?   What is the relationship between “filtered” and “unfiltered”–after all the “unfiltered” is the pyramid base so what does that mean?

For more Info:  For peer review, the lower level filtering of single studies, consider its 1)  advantages (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/)  and 2) its potential flaws (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/)

Evidence based nursing, evidence based practice, Leadership, Novice to Expert, Qualitative research

Want to change the world? Make a list

Leave a comment

For new graduate RNs (& those who help them) entering the workforce, Dr. Pat Benner PhD RN FAAN, who wrote Novice to Expert, has some great, very practical advice: Changehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxsBVPxS_zg  (1:56)  (hint: Remember the only behavior you can control is your own!)

And…it’s pretty good advice for any who assume a new job, too!

For More Information: If you want to know what it feels like sometimes to be a new growing plantgrad RN, check out the 2 main themes and the subthemes voiced by new graduates in the free full-text: Hussein et al., (2017). New graduate nurses‘ experiences in a clinical specialty: a follow up study of newcomer perceptions of transitional support. BMC Nursing, 16(42). doi: 10.1186/s12912-017-0236-0. eCollection 2017.

Critical Thinking:   Whether or not you are a new grad, did you have experiences similar to those in Hussein’s study?   Can you use Benner’s suggestions to deal with the issues?

 

Disseminating findings, Evidence based nursing, Literature review, Publication, reading research, Research class, Research student, School papers, Writing

DIY your own Intro/Background: Structure & Argument

1 Comment

Want to know how to write an introduction/background section of a paper?  Pay attention to STRUCTURE & evidence-based ARGUMENT in order to DIY (do-it-yourself) your own intro/background for a school paper or research report!

Let’s use this 2015 free full-text article by Marie Flem Sørbø et al. as a model!  Past and recent abuse is associated with early cessation of breast feeding: results from a large prospective cohort in Norway .   (Hint: Clicking on the article’s pdf tab may make it easier to read.)

Focus only on the INTRO/BACKGROUND section for now.  Check out the STRUCTURE then the EVIDENCE-BASED ARGUMENT of the Intro/Background.  This is how you should write your own.

STructure

STRUCTURE of INTRO/BACKGROUND in Sørbø et al. (2015):

  1. Where is the Intro/Background section located in the article?
  2. What heading is used for the section?
  3. Where are the research questions located in the Intro/Background?  (HINT: this is the standard place in all papers & in this case the authors call them “aims.)
Why2

ARGUMENTS in INTRO/BACKGROUND in Sørbø et al. (2015):

  1. Look at the first (topic) sentence of each paragraph in INTRO/BACKGROUND & listen to the systematic argument the researchers are making for WHY their study is important.
    • “Breast feeding has long been acknowledged as the optimal infant nutrition conferring beneficial short-term and long-term health effects for both infants and mothers.1–5      …
    • Abuse of women is common worldwide, as one in three women during lifetime suffer partner or non-partner abuse.10   …Adverse  effects [of abuse]… are barriers to breast feeding.*…
    • Given the overwhelming evidence of the positive effects of breast feeding, knowledge about factors influencing breastfeeding behaviour is essential….
    • We explored the impact of abuse of women on breastfeeding behaviour in a large prospective population in Norway where the expectations to breast feed are high, and breast feeding is facilitated in the work regulations….” (pp. 1-2)
      evidence2
  2. Now look at the research & other evidence written down AFTER each of above key sentences that SUPPORT each idea.
  3. Notice that the INTRO/BACKGROUND is NOT a series of abstracts of different studies!!  Instead evidence is grouped into key arguments for the study: Breast feeding is best, Abuse is common, Abuse creates barriers to breastfeeding, & Therefore, knowing about factors affecting breastfeeding is important). [Note: Of course, if your particular professor or editor asks you to do a series of abstracts, then you must, but do group them in arguments like the topic sentences.]

All this leads naturally, logically to …(drum roll please!)…the research questions/hypotheses, which are the gaps in our knowledge that the research will fill.  This sets up the rest of the research article!

Image result for star
Critical Thinking:  Your turn! Write your own Intro/Background using
STructure

  • Structure: Placement in article, heading, placement of research question/hypothesis
    Why2
  • Argument: Key idea topic sentences (make a list 1st) with supporting research & other evidence (your literature review).

For more info on Intro/Background:  Review my blogpost Intro to Intro’s

*ok, yeh. I cheated and included one additional sentence to capture the authors’ flow of argument.