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.
Write away!
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peer-review before publication; while some “filtered research” may have been ‘filtered’ only by a single expert & be out of date.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.
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
For More Info: Check out especially Steps #1, #2, & #3 of How to read a research article.
Self-report by participants is one of the most common ways that researchers collect data, yet it is fraught with problems. Some worries for researchers are: “Will participants be honest or will they say what they think I want to hear?” “Will they understand the 
questions correctly?” “Will those who respond (as opposed to those who don’t respond) have unique ways of thinking so that my respondents do not represent everyone well?” and a BIG worry “Will they even fill out and return the questionnaire?”
One way to solve at least the latter 2 problems is to increase the response rate, and Edwards et al (2009 July 8) reviewed randomized trials to learn how to do just that!!
If you want to improve your questionnaire response rates, check it out! Here is Edwards et al.’s plain language summary as published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, where you can read the entire report.
Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires
Postal and electronic questionnaires are a relatively inexpensive way to collect information from people for research purposes. If people do not reply (so called ‘non-responders’), the research results will tend to be less accurate. This systematic review found several ways to increase response. People can be contacted before they are sent a postal questionnaire. Postal questionnaires can be sent by first class post or recorded delivery, and a stamped-return envelope can be provided. Questionnaires, letters and e-mails can be made more personal, and preferably kept short. Incentives can be offered, for example, a small amount of money with 
a postal questionnaire. One or more reminders can be sent with a copy of the questionnaire to people who do not reply.
Critical/reflective thinking: Imagine that you were asked to participate in a survey. Which of these strategies do you think would motivate or remind you to respond and why?
For more info read the full report: Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires
There are several ways to classify types of research. One way is qualitative versus quantitative–in other words, WORD vs. NUMBER data, methods, & analysis.
If you watch this short, easy-to-understand youtube clip, you’ll have all the basics that you need to understand these! Enjoy!
Critical thinking: Go to PubMed for this QUANTitative study on spiritual issues in care (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28403299) and compare it to this PubMed QUALitative study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27853263) in terms of data, methods, & analysis)
For more information: See earlier posts
Researchers collect two types of data in their studies
One source of rich word or narrative (qualitative) data for answering nursing questions is nurses’ stories. Dr. Pat Benner RN, author of Novice to Expert explains two things we can do to help nurses fully tell their stories so we can learn the most from their practice.
Check out this excellent 2:59 video of Dr. Benner’s and revolutionize how you learn about nursing from nursing stories: Preview: The use of Narratives
Critical thinking: For a study using narratives in research see Leboul et al. (2017). Palliative sedation challenging the professional competency of health care providers and staff: A qualitative focus group and personal written narrative study. [full text available thru PubMed at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28399846]. 1) Do you think the authors listened and unpacked information from the focus groups & written narratives; 2) Do you think there might be a difference in the way people write narratives and verbally tell narratives? 3) How might that difference if any affect the research findings?
For more information: Check out The Power of Story by Wang & Geale (2015) at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352013215000496
Quasi-experiments are a lot of work, yet don’t have the same scientific power to show cause and effect, as do randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An RCT would provide better support for any hypothesis that X causes Y. [As a quick review of what quasi-experimental versus RCT studies are, see “Of Mice & Cheese” and/or “Out of Control (Groups).”]
So why do quasi-experimental studies at all? Why not always do RCTs when we are testing cause and effect? Here are 3 reasons:
#1 Sometimes ETHICALLY the researcher canNOT randomly assign subjects to a control 
and an experimental group. If the researcher wants to compare health outcomes of smokers with non-smokers, the researcher cannot assign some people to smoke and others not to smoke! Why? Because we already know that smoking has significant harmful effects. (Of course, in a dictatorship, by using the police a researcher could assign them to smoke or not smoke, but I don’t think we wanna go there.)
#2 Sometimes PHYSICALLY the researcher canNOT randomly assign subjects to control & 
experimental groups. If the researcher wants to compare health outcomes of
individuals from different countries, it is physically impossible to assign country of origin.
#3 Sometimes FINANCIALLY the researcher canNOT afford to assign subjects randomly 
to control & experimental groups. It costs $ & time to get a list of subjects and then assign them to control & experimental groups using random numbers table or drawing names from a hat.
Thus, researchers sometimes are left with little alternative, but to do a quasi-experiment as the next best thing to an RCT, then discuss its limitations in research reports.
Critical Thinking: You read a research study in which a researcher recruits the 1st 100 patients on a surgical ward January-March quarter as a control group. Then the researcher recruits the 2nd 100 patients on that same surgical ward April-June for the experimental group. With the experimental group, the staff uses a new, standardized pain script for better pain communications. Then the pain communication outcomes of each group are compared statistically.
For more info: see “Of Mice & Cheese” and/or “Out of Control (Groups).”
Welcome back after a bit of silence on my end!![welcome[1]](https://discoveringyourinnerscientist.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/welcome1.gif?w=163&h=119)
In the last “Quasi-wha??” blogpost, I described 1 type of experimental design: Quasi-experimental. To review… In quasi-experimental designs, the researcher manipulates some variable, but either 1) doesn’t randomly assign subjects to a control and experimental group OR 2) doesn’t have a control group at all.
For example, the researcher may introduce pet therapy on unit #1 and avoid pet therapy on unit #2 and then afterwards compare the anxiety levels of patients on the 2 units. That study has a control group (unit #2), but because patients weren’t (& probably couldn’t be) randomly assigned to the units, this would be a quasi-experimental study. The control group in this pet therapy case is what researchers call a “non-equivalent control group.” Non-equivalent means the groups are different in ways that might affect study results! [Note: For review of what constitutes a true experimental study see first part of “Quasi-wha??” blogpost.]
Herein lies a weak link in the cause-and-effect chain. Quasi- designs are NOT as strong as true experimental designs because something other than our treatment (in this case pet therapy) may have created any difference in outcomes (e.g., anxiety levels). Why? Here’s your answer.
In an experimental study, randomly assigning subjects to a
control and a separate experimental group means that all the little, variable weirdities of all subjects are equally distributed to each group. Each group is the same mix of different types of people. This means we can assume that both groups are the exact same type of
people in regard to things that may influence study outcomes, such as attitudes, values, preferences, beliefs, anxiety level, psychology, physiology and so on.
In contrast, in the quasi-experimental pet therapy example above, there is probably something that caused a certain type of person to be on unit #1 and a different type to be on unit #2. Maybe it was their diagnosis, their doctor, their type of surgery, or other. Thus, we cannot assume that people in unit #1 and unit #2 groups are the same before pet therapy, and so any differences between them after pet therapy might have already existed.
So why do quasi-experimental studies at all?? There are great reasons! Stay tuned for next blogpost.
Critical thinking: Check out free full-text, quasi-experiment Gough et al., (2017). Tweet for Behavior Change: Using Social Media for the Dissemination of Public Health Messages.
For more information on studies with non-randomized control groups see “Of Mice & Cheese” or comment below. Let’s talk!
Two basic kinds of research design exist:
One particularly interesting “experimental” design is one in which 1 or 2 of the experimental design ideal requirements as listed above are missing. These are called quasi-experimental designs.
In a quasi experimental design
A quasi-experimental design is not as strong as a true experiment in showing that the manipulated variable X causes changes in the outcome variable Y. For example, a true experimental study with manipulation, randomization, and a control group would create much stronger evidence that hospital therapy dogs really reduced patient pain and anxiety. We would not be as confident in the results of a quasi-experimental design examining the exact same thing. In the next blog, we’ll examine why.
For more info: Check out earlier blog: “What is an RCT anyway?” at https://discoveringyourinnerscientist.com/2015/01/23/whats-a-randomized-controlled-trial/
Critical thinking: Go to PubMed & use search terms “experiment AND nurse” (without the quotation marks). Open an interesting abstract and look for the 3 elements of a classic experimental design. Now look for “quasi experiment AND nurse” (without the quotation marks.) See what element is missing!
Discovering Your Inner Scientist 