In a couple of recent blog entries I noted what you can and cannot learn from research 1) titles & 2) abstracts. Now, let me introduce you to the next part of research article: Introduction (or sometimes called Background or no title at all!). Introduction immediately follows the abstract.
The introduction/background “[a] outlines the background of the problem or issue being examined, [b] summarizes the existing literature on the subject, and [c] states the research questions, objectives, and possibly hypothesis” (p. 6, Davies & Logan, 2012)
This section follows the abstract. It may or may not have a heading(s) of “Introduction” or “Background” or both. Like the abstract, the Introduction describes the problem in which the researcher is interested & sometimes the specific research question or hypothesis that will be measured.
In the Intro/Background you will get a more full description of why the problem is a priority for research and what is already known about the problem (i.e., literature 
review).
Key point #1: Articles & research that are reviewed in theIntro/Background should be mostly within the past 5-7 years. Sometimes included are classic works that may be much older OR sometimes no recent research exists. If recent articles aren’t used, this should raise some questions in your mind. You know well that healthcare changes all the time!! If old studies are used the author should explain.
Key point #2: The last sentence or two in theIntro/Background is usually the research question or hypothesis (unless the author awards it its own section). If you need to know the research question/hypothesis right away, you can skip straight to the end of the Intro/background—and there it is!
Critical Thinking: 1) Read the abstract then 2) Read the 1st section of this 2015 free full-text article by Marie Flem Sørbø et al.: Past and recent abuse is associated with early cessation of breast feeding: results from a large prospective cohort in Norway
- Is it called Introduction/Background or both?
- What literature is already available on the problem or issue being examined?
- What are the research questions/hypotheses? (After reading above you should know exactly where to look for these now.)
For More Info: Check out especially Steps #1, #2, & #3 of How to read a research article.
Abstracts can mislead 
encourage us, Don’t give up reading the full article just because some parts of the study may be hard to understand. Just read and get what you can, then re-read the difficult-to-understand parts. Get some help with those PRN.
Evidence-based practice = best available evidence + expert clinical judgment + patient & family values/preferences.
practice journals that are beginning to grow–these take best information from the research report all the way through clinical recommendations. For research reports per se, 
database; & there when you find information that fits using your key search terms, you can also look for related articles & get full-text through interlibrary loan or online. Another strategy is take the article that fits your clinical issue to your librarian, and ask for help in finding more research on the identical clinical issue.
In pain management are you afraid to give comfort to your patients with appropriate medications? Are you afraid to be comforted when in pain? Have you encountered families or care partners, who are afraid to comfort their loved one in pain by giving pain medications?
information. We have to find evidence-based practices that can create a change of heart, if you will. As Zerwekh et al wrote: “Because fear is so influential in decisions to keep pain under control, palliative educational approaches must go beyond providing information to fill deficits in palliative knowledge.”
Google–not to mention yahoo, bing & other web search engines–are mere popularity contests of literature. Google Scholar is a step up, but it is still a search engine. It can miss important articles entirely.
For more info: Look for that 
numbers. Another problem will occur if the reliability and validity of the self-report questionnaire is not established. (Reliability is consistency in measurement and validity is the accuracy of measuring what it purports to measure.) Additionally, self-reports typically provide only a)ordinal level data, such as on a 1-to-5 scale, b) nominal data, such as on a yes/no scale, or c) qualitative descriptions in words without categories or numbers. (Ordinal data=scores are in order with some numbers higher than others, and nominal data = categories. Statistical calculations are limited for both and not possible for qualitative data unless the researcher counts themes or words that recur.)
An example of a self-report measure that we regard as a gold standard for clinical and research data = 0-10 pain scale score. An example of a self-report measure that might be useful but less preferred is a self-assessment of knowledge (e.g., How strong on a 1-5 scale is your knowledge of arterial blood gas interpretation?) The use of it for knowledge can be okay as long as everyone understands that it is perceived level of knowledge.
at 
perimental drug X will have better cardiac function than will heart failure patients who receive standard drug Y.” You can see that the researcher is manipulating the drug (independent variable) that patients will receive. And patient cardiac outcomes are expected to vary—in fact cardiac function is expected to be better—for patients who receive the experimental drug X.
1st – Identify the population in the hypothesis—the population does not vary (& so, it is not a variable). 2nd – Identify the independent variable–This will be the one that is the cause & it will vary. 3rd – Identify the dependent variable–This will be the one that is the outcome & its variation depends on changes/variation in the independent variable.
Discovering Your Inner Scientist 