Tag Archives: Writing

“Should you? Can you?”

ApplesOranges2Quasi-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 Smokingand 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 & Country of Originexperimental 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 PiggyBankto 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.

  • Is this a quasi-experiment or a randomized controlled trial (RCT)?
  • What factors (variables) might be the same among control & experimental groups in this study?
  • What factors (variables) might be different between control & experimental groups that might affect study outcomes?
  • How could you design an ethical & possible RCT that would overcome the problems with this study?
  • Why might you choose to do the study the same way that this researcher did?

For more info: see “Of Mice & Cheese” and/or “Out of Control (Groups).”

Share for Sure! Quality it is

Share your quality projects for sure!  You learned from them & so can the larger community.   Make your voice heard.

Let below encourage you to encourage you to publish, present, disseminate your quality improvement projects!!share

Davidoff & Batalden in 2005 wrote these words that still apply today:

In contrast with the primary goals of science, which are to discover and disseminate new knowledge, the primary goal of improvement is to change performance. Unfortunately, scholarly accounts of the methods, experiences, and results of most medical quality improvement work are not published, either in print or electronic form. In our view this failure to publish is a serious deficiency: it limits the available evidence on efficacy, prevents critical scrutiny, deprives staff of the opportunity and incentive to clarify thinking, slows dissemination of established improvements, inhibits discovery of innovations, and compromises the ethical obligation to return valuable information to the public.The reasons for this failure are many: competing service responsibilities of and lack of academic rewards for improvement staff; editors’ and peer reviewers’ unfamiliarity with improvement goals and methods; and lack of publication guidelines that are appropriate for rigorous, scholarly improvement work. We propose here a draft set of guidelines designed to help with writing, reviewing, editing, interpreting, and using such reports. We envisage this draft as the starting point for collaborative development of more definitive guidelines. We suggest that medical quality improvement will not reach its full potential unless accurate and transparent reports of improvement work are published frequently and widely.
share2
Critical thinking: 
What is a QI project on your unit in which others might be interested? Sketch out an outline using headings recommended here: http://ocpd.med.umich.edu/moc-qi/presenting-publishing-qi

For more Info see Davidoff & Batalden. (2005). Toward stronger evidnece on quality improvment. Draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 14, 319-32. doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.014787

A FAB resource if you want to let your light shine: Writing for publication

sunshineWant to write for publication?   CHECK OUT NURSE AUTHOR & EDITOR as one of the best places to learn to improve your writing:  http://naepub.com/

 

A few suggestions from me

  1. You should have the goal of disseminating a project that will help others. Just trying to publish “something” won’t take you far.   Figure out the unique twist of your ideas.  Talk it over with colleagues & see what they find interesting.
  2. Select as many journals from this list or other lists that you think might be interested:    https://nursingeditors.com/journals-directory/
  3. Write a query email to each journal to see if they are interested.  NOTE: some journals will tell you what format your query should follow.  You can write as many query letters as you want.
  4. Pick a journal from those interested.   YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE TO ONLY 1 JOURNAL at a time.  If that journal rejects you can then submit to 1 other, and so on.
  5. Edit your paper with that journal’s audience in mind.writing-hand
  6. Get a peer to read thoroughly and critique your article!  THEN you have to LISTEN to all their concerns.  If something is unclear to a peer, it will probably be unclear to a peer-reviewer.
  7. Format & submit EXACTLY, EXACTLY as they ask on the journal instructions to authors.  (If you want to annoy editors and reviewers just ignore their instructions to potential authors.)
  8. Wait & keep your fingers crossed
  9. If they turn back to you for revisions that is a GOOD SIGN.  It means they’re interested and you should address every concern.
  10. Resubmit

question1FOR MORE INFORMATION: Check our Nurse Author & Editor for sure! http://naepub.com/