Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature

Walden University Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature-Step-By-Step Guide

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.

How to Research and Prepare for Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.

How to Write the Introduction for Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature

The introduction for the Walden University Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.

How to Write the Body for Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature

After the introduction, move into the main part of the Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.

Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.

How to Write the Conclusion for Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature

After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.

How to Format the References List for Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature

The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.

Stuck? Let Us Help You

Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.

Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.

Sample Answer for Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature

The Framingham Heart Study (FHS) is known to be the most famous and influential investigation in cardiovascular disease epidemiology (Oppenheimer, 2010). It was inaugurated in 1947 and since then it has been referred to as a primary model of reference for other cohort studies. It has provided a unique data base for researchers investigating into cardiovascular issues such as the relationship between obesity and cigarettes smoking and risks associated with myocardial infarction and cardiac related mortality (Oppenheimer, 2010). Utilization of a cohort study in research allows researchers to develop outcomes that can be repeated by other similar studies and helps improve validity of the study outcomes. The FHS since its existence has helped researchers link clinical and laboratory data. This approach allowed researchers to develop primary and secondary prevention methods that helped in early detection and identification of signs and risk factors of disease before it occurs (Oppenheimer, 2010). While it had strengths, it also had its weakness. Bias was increased in the FHS when the researchers underestimated the amount of people that would refuse to participate and ended up only having 14% of the cohort study’s 5127 original participants. Given the circumstances of the Cole War era, the researchers removed items that may have disturbed people to help improve participation. Such factors may have skewed results and increased bias while increased confounding variables. This is more evident because items that were removed were questions about psychiatric history, sexual dysfunction, income, and social class (Oppenheimer, 2010). Also, the participants that were used in the study were only white/Caucasian individuals, consideration was not given to individuals with other ethnicity creating room for bias.

Cognizant of the role that training plays when it comes to improving a nurse’s competencies in EBP and thus empowering them to contribute to the development of EBP, here are certain strategies that can be undertaken from both an organizational level, to the larger professional level. At the organizational level, the organization can organize for opportunities where their nurses can get trained on evidence based practice. On the greater professional levels, professional bodies such as the ANA and the ANCC have developed certification program for nurses. By including components of evidence based practice in the certification exams, this ensures that nurses will prepare and apprise themselves on EBP and thus, in order to earn the certification, they will have to be competent in EBP. Alternatively, the institutions can include a whole different certification for EBP, where nurses will specifically be trained on EBP, tested on the same and thus, their competency will be proven by their certification. This will ultimately improve their ability to participate in the development and implementation of EBP.

Elliotte et al. (1999) conducted a study to understand the epidemiology of chronic pain. The research adopted random sampling technique that included the use of questionnaires and case screening questions, which reduced bias and increased the validity of the

research finding. The approach of ensuring that every subsequent entity was included in the study and the utilization of the systematic random sampling approach was important in ensuring that an equal representation of patient in each subgroup were included. The graded pain was classified into 5 grades ranging from grade 0 9 pain free) to grade IV (high disability, severely limiting) (Elliott et al., 1999). The study applied quality control measures, and this helped to arrive at valid conclusions. Also, the reliability of the study was taken into consideration based on the analysis of the findings at a 95% confidence interval. Findings from the study was consistent with findings from another related research conducted by Wallace et al (2018). Both authors agreed that a clear and concise definition of pain along with a defined pain scale is crucial to the understanding of chronic pain and patient responses. A reduced sample size of this magnitude makes it difficult to generalize the results of the study to all people with chronic pain. The utilization of a longitudinal approach in investigating the issue would have improved data collection through the detection of developments or changes in the characteristics of the population among the subgroup and individual levels to validate the findings.

References

Elliott, A. M., Smith, B. H., Penny, K., Smith, W. C., & Chambers, W. A. (1999). The

epidemiology of chronic pain in the community. The Lancet, 354(9186), 1248– 1252.

Oppenheimer, G. M. (2010). Framingham Heart Study: The first 20 years. Progress in

Cardiovascular Diseases, 53(1), 55-61.

Wallace, M. S., North, J., Grigsby, E. J., Kapural, L., Sanapati, M. R., Smith, S. G., Willoughby,

C., McIntyre,P. J., Cohen, S. P., Rosenthal, R. M., Ahmed, S., Vallejo, R., Ahadian, F. M., Yearwood, T. L., Burton, A. W., Frankoski, E. J., Shetake, J., Lin, S., Hershey, B., … Mekel-Bobrov, N. (2018). An integrated quantitative index for measuring chronic multisite pain: The Multiple Areas of Pain (MAP) study. Pain Medicine, 19(7), 1425–1435. https://doiorg.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1093/pm/pnx325

Week 6 part 2 Psychosocial Factors in Health

Collapse

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature

Sample Answer 2 for Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature

The strength of the chronic pain article is the use of a large sample size. The researcher mailed questionnaires to 5036 patients,

and 3605 returned completed, equaling a return rate of about 46.5% of the general population (Elliott et al., 1999). The screening

process of participants was flawed. The general practitioner could exclude patients from the study based on their feelings because

there were no specific exclusion criteria (Elliott et al., 1999).

The cohort design in the Framingham Heart Study was a strength. The cohort design allows a researcher to look for past exposures

and future effects of exposures to disease to test the association between cause and outcomes (Friis & Sellers, 2020). A significant

weakness of this study is the participants. The sample consisted of almost entirely of white, middle-class Euro-Americans from a

small, prosperous economic New England town (Oppenheimer, 2010).

Bias of Each Study

Study errors occur due to an unsuitable selection of participants and inadequate data collection about exposure and disease (Friis

& Sellers, 2020). Participant selection was significantly biased in both studies. The Framingham Heart Study excluding patients of

color, women, and using primarily white men living in an affluent town would not give an accurate view of people with coronary

vascular disease. The permitting of general practitioners to base patients’ participation on feelings is unacceptable. Researchers can

prevent biases by training personnel on participant criteria and setting well-defined guidelines for the target population to ensure

equal case representation (Friis & Sellers, 2020).

Confounding Variables

A confounding variable in the chronic pain article could have been the large random sample size. The practitioners screened to

prevent insensitive inquiries, such as terminally ill patients (Elliott et al., 1999), would not qualify for the study.

The Framingham Heart Study confounding variable could have been the cohort design. The definition of a cohort is a population

group with similar characteristics. A homogenous population subgroup, known as a stratum (Friis & Sellers, 2020) of only white males,

would yield better results for the study.

References

Elliott, A. M., Smith, B. H., Penny, K. I., Cairns Smith, W., & Alastair Chambers, W. (1999). The epidemiology of chronic pain in the community. The Lancet, 354(9186), 1248–1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(99)03057-3

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. (2020). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning. https://online.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9781284221718/epubcfi/6/98[%3Bvnd.vst.idref%3Dxhtml_13_chapter05_06]!/4/2[ch5-6]/12/6/1:460[s%20m%2Cay%20]

Oppenheimer, G. M. (2010). Framingham heart study: The first 20 years. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 53(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2010.03.003

Sample Answer 3 for Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature

Appraisal of literature allows researchers to identify strengths, benefits, and applications of such content and the inherent weak areas. The articles by Oppenheimer (2010) and Elliott et al. (1999) have particular strengths and weaknesses and potential sources of bias. The strengths in Oppenheimer’s article include the quantification and detailed description of chronic pain in the community under investigation based on social demographic status, sex, and age. The strengths of Elliott et al. article include offering a separate database to test a host of non-CVD issues and identifying aspects that statisticians and healthcare providers experience in developing an epidemiological study. The authors also draw the community under review into research support.

Conversely, the two articles also have weaknesses. The weaknesses of Oppenheimer’s article include the inability to provide feedback on areas where participants failed to give. Secondly, the author didn’t use responses from the participants during data analysis (Oppenheimer, 2010). The weakness of the second article is the multiple investments by different authorities in the project, which may demonstrate a conflict of interests.

Potential sources of bias in the articles include the failure to consider all possible variables, which leads to inaccurate interpretation of outcomes. Both articles used an inadequate representation of their respective populations. Researchers can avoid this bias by expanding the samples in their studies to represent the entire population. Convenience bias is evident in the first article due to selecting individuals aged 25 years and above. Researchers need to give equal chances to all potential subjects to be part of their survey. Again, the bias of self-selected cohort is evident in the second article. This leads to an unbiased estimate of the prevalence of aspects in the research (Elliott et al., 1999). Researchers can correct this by using a collective model in data collection so that all participants have an equal chance.

Confounding variables are extra variables that researchers fail to consider when doing trials. These variables can affect results and render them useless, increasing bias and affecting variance. The founding variables in the two articles include the inability to consider feedback from respondents during their data analysis. The studies should have also considered having control variables to mitigate bias.

References

Elliott, A. M., Smith, B. H., Penny, K. I., Smith, W. C., & Chambers, W. A. (1999). The

epidemiology of chronic pain in the community. The Lancet, 354(9186), 1248-1252. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)03057-

Oppenheimer, G. M. (2010). Framingham heart study: the first 20 years. Progress in

cardiovascular diseases, 53(1), 55-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.pcad.2010.03.003.