NURS 8201 Week 7 Discussion: Use of Regression Analysis in Clinical Practice
NURS 8201 Week 7 Discussion: Use of Regression Analysis in Clinical Practice
Discussion: Use of Regression Analysis in Clinical Practice
When a regression analysis was to be completed on the body mass index (BMI), there are several independent variables that could be included in the processes of analysis. In other words, for the regression analysis on the body mass index, the independent variable can be activity level or frequency in undertaking physical activities. The activity level can be measured in terms of the amount of time taken while undertaking physical activities (Zhang et. Al., 2019). From the theoretical perspectives and from the previous research processes, it has been established that continuous physical exercise can lead to the reduction in weight. In other words, physical activities have direct impacts on body weight. For effective outcomes of the regression analysis, there is the need for the independent variables to have a normal distribution, also, they need to be continuous variables.
Another independent variable that may relate to the Body Mass Index is the amount of fatty food intake. In most cases, increased intake of fatty foods is one of the major contributors to increase in body mass index. Individuals who consume high amount of fatty foods often tend to experience increase in body weight. As a result, their body mass indices are likely to increase. While using amount of fatty foods intake as an independent variable, there is a need ensure that it is continuous and normally distributed. Finally, height may be considered as one of the independent variables in the regression analysis whereby BMI has been used as dependent variable. The determination of body mass index often involve the incorporation of the height of an individual. The body mass index is determined through dividing the weight of an individual with the square if the height. Therefore, height is an important determinant of the body mass index.
From the regression analysis, there is ANOVA outcomes that can be applied in the determination of whether the model is fit. From the ANOVA table, the significant values can always show if there is the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. The significant values can be tested against the alpha value at 0.05. Also, the mean square as well as the F-values obtained can be used to determine the values of body mass index. Also, the unstandardized coefficients can be applied in the determination of the correlation coefficient in the process of determining the relationship between the dependent and independent variables in the process of analysis.
Regression analysis provides the researcher with an opportunity to predict and explore future outcomes. Whether it is to determine prevention methods, promote opportunities for learning, or propose new treatments, looking towards the future can have a significant impact on patient care and sustained positive patient outcomes.
This week, you explore regression analysis, paying particular attention to linear regression. Linear regression is used to “estimate the value of a dependent variable based on the value of an independent variable” (Gray & Grove, 2020). In your Discussion, you will apply your understanding of this statistical technique as it concerns use in a research study.
Photo Credit: wutzkoh / Adobe Stock
For this Discussion, you will select an article on a study to examine the strengths and weaknesses in the use of linear regression. Consider how you might remedy the weaknesses associated with the application of linear regression and reflect on how the findings of the study that you selected might contribute to various areas of your practice.
Reference: Gray, J. R., & Grove, S. K. (2020). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (9th ed.). Elsevier.
To Prepare:
- Review the articles in this week’s Learning Resources and evaluate their use of linear regression. Select one article that interests you to examine more closely in this Discussion.
- Critically analyze the article that you selected and consider the strengths and weaknesses described.
- Reflect on potential remedies to address these weaknesses, and how the findings from this study may contribute to evidence-based practice, the field of nursing, or society in general.
By Day 3 of Week 7
Post a brief description of the article that you selected, providing its correct APA citation. Critically analyze the article by addressing the following questions:
- What are the goals and purposes of the research study that the article describes?
- How is linear or logistic regression used in the study? What are the results of its use?
- What other quantitative and statistical methods could be used to address the research issue discussed in the article?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
Then, explain potential remedies to address the weaknesses that you identified for the research article that you selected. Analyze the importance of this study to evidence-based practice, the nursing profession, or society. Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 6 of Week 7
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:
- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
NURS 8201 Week 7 Discussion Use of Regression Analysis in Clinical Practice - ·Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
- Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
- Suggest an alternative perspective based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
- Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
Also Read: NURS 8201 Week 6 Assignment: Correlations
To access your rubric:
Week 7 Discussion Rubric
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8201 Week 7 Discussion: Use of Regression Analysis in Clinical Practice
Post by Day 3 of Week 7 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 7
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 7 Discussion
Regression analysis is one of the statistical models used in estimating the relationship between variables. The researcher has the ability to determine the effect that an independent variable has on the dependent variable (Willis & Riley, 2017). For example, an increase in one or more values on the independent variable would have an effect on the dependent variable. This paper examines regression analysis was used by an author including its weaknesses and strengths.
Article Summary
The article authored by Hatakeyama et al., (2019) aimed at finding the relationship between quality of clinical practice guideline (CPGs) and overall assessment scores. This study considered the previous studies that had been done and published between 2011 and 2015. These selected studies were subjected through an independent valuation using AGREE II. The author analyzed the results using a regression analysis. For instance, the analysis included the effect that the six domains and 23 items has on the overall assessment. The study collected a total of 206 CPGs and correlated all the domains to the items on the overall assessment to determine the strength of the relationship before taking the regression analysis on the proposed items.
Use of Regression on the Article
The author decided to subject domain 3, domain 4, domain 5, and domain 6 of the regression analysis. Domain three represented rigor of development, domain four was for clarity of presentation, domain five was for applicability and finally domain 6 was for editorial independence. The analysis was majoring on how these domains influence the overall assessment (Hatakeyama et al., 2019). The analysis showed that all the domains had a significant relationship with the overall assessment. The author also found that four different items on AGREE II, which were item 8, 15, 19 and 22 had an effect on overall assessment. The regression analysis showed that the change in one unit of the items above had a significant change on the overall assessment which in this case acted as the dependent variable (Hatakeyama et al., 2019). Therefore, the improvement of overall assessment dependent on the increase and decrease of the items that acted as independent variables in this case.
Other statistical analysis that could have been used in the study is ANOVA analysis because it shows the strength of the relationship between the items selected. Besides, it allows the researcher to determine the effect that each dependent variables have on each other and how the relationship between the dependent variables can influence the study (Fontaine et al., 2019). Use of ANOVA tests in this study could have strengthened and relayed more information on the collection of items that could have a great impact on the overall assessment.
The strength of the regression analysis is on the ability of the author to examine more than one dependent variable. According to the study the author was interested in 22 items and their effect on overall assessment. The study is able to report on the influence of 22 items more easily as compared to other methods that could have been complex (Hatakeyama et al., 2019). Despite the strength that regression analysis has on the study, the method also has its weakness it lacks the ability to examine the relationship between the independent variables considered in the study.
Conclusion
Regression analysis is a powerful tool in assessing the relationship between dependent and independent variables. The author in the selected the study has the ability to evaluate which of the 22 items have a high or low effect on the overall assessment.
References
Fontaine, G., Cossette, S., Maheu-Cadotte, M. A., Deschênes, M. F., Rouleau, G., Lavallée, A., … & Mailhot, T. (2019). Effect of implementation interventions on nurses’ behaviour in clinical practice: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression protocol. Systematic reviews, 8(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1227-x
Hatakeyama, Y., Seto, K., Amin, R., Kitazawa, T., Fujita, S., Matsumoto, K., & Hasegawa, T. (2019). The structure of the quality of clinical practice guidelines with the items and overall assessment in AGREE II: a regression analysis. BMC health services research, 19(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4532-0
Willis, B. H., & Riley, R. D. (2017). Measuring the statistical validity of summary meta‐analysis and meta‐regression results for use in clinical practice. Statistics in medicine, 36(21), 3283-3301. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7372
Name: NURS_8201_Week7_Discussion_Rubric
| Excellent
90–100 |
Good
80–89 |
Fair
70–79 |
Poor
0–69 |
|||
| Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. |
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. |
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. |
||
| Main Posting:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
||
| Main Posting:
Timely and full participation |
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. |
||
| First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| First Response:
Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
| First Response:
Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
||
| Second Response: Writing |
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
||
| Second Response: Timely and full participation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
||
| Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Name: NURS_8201_Week7_Discussion_Rubric