Want to know the standardized format for writing up your research study, QI report, case 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.
What do people HATE about online surveys? If you want to improve your response rates, check out SurveyMonkey Eric V’s (May 2017) Eliminate survey fatigue: Fix 3 things your respondents hate
For more info: Check out my earlier post “Please Answer!”
Last post I commented on the potentially misleading terms of Filtered & Unfiltered research. 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peer-review before publication; while some “filtered research” may have been ‘filtered’ only by a single expert & be out of date.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.
You 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.
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.
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 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/)
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: https://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 grad 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?