NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management Week 6 Assignment Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
NUR 550 Translation Research and Population Health Management
Week 6 Assignment
Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review
In Part A, you described the population and quality initiative related to your PICOT (Population/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Time to achieve the outcome) statement. In this assignment, you will formalize your PICOT and research process.
Use the GCU Library to perform a search for peer-reviewed research articles. Find five peer-reviewed primary source translational research articles.
In a paper of 1,250-1,500 words, synthesize the research into a literature review. The literature review should provide an overview for the reader that illustrates the research related to your particular PICOT. Include the following:
Introduction: Describe the clinical issue or problem you are addressing.
Methods: Describe the criteria you used in choosing your articles
Synthesize the Literature: Part A: Discuss the main components of each article (subjects, methods, key findings) and provide rationale for how this supports your PICOT; Part B: Compare and contrast the articles: Discuss limitations, controversies, and similarities/differences of the studies.
Areas of Further Study: Analyze the evidence presented in your articles to identify what is known, unknown, and requires further study.
You are required to cite five to 10 sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Benchmark -Evidence-Based Practice Project: Literature Review
The Coronavirus disease of 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic remains one of the most dreaded infectious diseases that the world ever witnessed. The condition led to diverse measures to control and stop its spread and adverse effects like mortality and severe disease. One of the initiative that the World Health Organization (WHO) in collaboration and cooperation with different stakeholders used was the development of a vaccine and offering shots to people to protect them against the condition. However, effective uptake of vaccines was hampered due to several reasons, key among them lack of awareness and information about these inoculations (Kaim et al., 2021). Health education about Covid-19 for the general population is essential in raising awareness and information on the up take of the vaccines to deal with the health issue.
Evidence-based practice (EBP) requires one to develop a PICOT question to tackle the identified health issue, in this case increased public health education to improve vaccinations against Covid-19. The PICOT question for the project is: Among the general population and individuals at risk of Covid-19 (P) will the use of health education about covid-19 vaccination plans (I) as compared to no intervention (C) lead to a 50% increased willingness to take covid-19 vaccine (O) within six months (T)? The purpose of this paper is to review articles selected for the EBP project on health education to increase up take of Covid-19 vaccines in the general population.
The search of existing literature focused on getting peer-reviewed articles that support the PICOT question through known or relevant databases, use of related key terms like Covid-19 pandemic, use of health education for vaccine up take, and role of nurses. The literature review search focused on different databases that included PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and MEDLINE as well as Google Scholar. The paper also employed the key terms and words from the PICOT question to improve the search and limit the possible articles that addressed the issue of public health education related to increasing up take of Covid-19 jabs in the general population. The strategy also entailed a keen focus on using systematic reviews and meta-analyses as highest levels of evidence. The search also narrowed down to articles produced in English without any translation. The key words aligned the search to the PICOT question. The other aspects of the search were to filter the articles using the CRAAP approach where articles were evaluated based on the currency, accuracy, authority, and purpose to the selected issue.
Synthesis of Literature Based on the Articles
The first article by Motta et al. (2020) discusses the need for effective health communication to encourage the public to take the Covid-19 vaccine. The aim of the study was to determine the effectiveness of educational messages in increasing the willingness to have Covid-19 vaccine. The study integrated 7064 individuals to determine if effective messaging from public health entities improved vaccine up take. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows the effectiveness of the proposed intervention, health education, to encourage and increase public’s up take of the Covid-19 jab.
The second article by James (2021) focuses on the effects of persuasive messaging in increasing up take of Covid-19 vaccines. The authors contend that low up take of vaccines will prolong the pandemic. However, a core aspect of convincing the public to take vaccines is through health education. The quantitative study used educational messages that it sent to individuals to improve their uptake vaccines. The authors are categorical that using persuasive messaging allows more people to focus on their responsibility to stop the spread of the condition. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows the efficacy of persuasive messages to the public as an intervention to improve vaccine taking by individuals.
The third article by Jensen et al. (2022) aims at evaluating the effectiveness of video-based messages to reduce vaccine hesitancy and use for the general population to prevent and reduce the rise in Covid-19 and associated severe effects. The authors use online experiment to demonstrate that willingness to get vaccinated is influenced by the kind of messaging that stakeholders. These messages increase confidence in Covod-19 vaccines and perceived behavioral approaches for vaccination. These messages altered the perception of the skeptical people who had no confidence in Covid-19 vaccines. Imperatively, the article supports the PICOT question by showing the effectiveness of messages to improve uptake of the developed vaccines to reduce the spread and severity of Covid-19 pandemic.
The fourth article by Piltch-Loeb et al. (2021) examines the effects of different communication and messaging channels in information dissemination to increase acceptance of the Covid-19 jab. The quantitative study used education as an intervention to improve confidence in the Covid-19 vaccines. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows that educational interventions are essential in improving acceptance and uptake of Covid-19 vaccines in the general population.
The fourth article by Li et al. (2022) discusses the effect of an education intervention on Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Using an education intervention that comprised a PowerPoint presentation, the study shows that having sufficient information through education is essential to dealing altering perception and improving uptake of vaccines in different populations like the American military. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows that health education is an integral part of improving acceptance of any intervention to tackle public health problems like infectious diseases.
The fifth article is by Miller et al. (2022) discusses the impact pf education, partisanship and biological literacy on understanding the Covid-19 disease. At the core of the study was the use of different approaches, including education to improve understanding of Covid-19 among the general population. The study supports the PICOT question based on the data that it provides to justify the role of health education for people to accept these vaccines and be willing to get shots to reduce its overall effects.
The sixth article by Piltch-Loeb et al. (2022) tests that effectiveness of attitudinal inoculation videos in improving acceptance of Covid-19 vaccine. Using different intervention groups, the article observes that vaccinated individuals do not accept misinformation. These findings support the PICOT question as they show the need to have effective education that expands and helps people make better choices, like taking vaccines.
The seventh article by Davis et al. (2019) explores the importance of accessing the right information to influence one’s taking of the vaccine. The quantitative study used 481 participants to assess the efficacy of education and information on Covid-19 to improve uptake of vaccines. The article supports the PICOT question for the EBP project as it shows that education and information are essential components of an effective public health system.
The eighth article addresses the role of vaccine campaign through an educational approach in shifting the willingness of persons to get vaccinated against the Covid-19 pandemic. Using a sample population of 2000 adults from Latin America, the authors show that the proposed intervention is essential in relaying messages to improve uptake of Covid-19 vaccine. Imperatively, the article supports the PICOT question as it illustrates that the use of education is important in having effective awareness and demystifying any negative perception on the role of vaccines.
Comparison of the Articles
The articles show differences and similarities in their themes and conclusions. They all demonstrate that use of education and information as ways of improving uptake of Covid-19 vaccines among the general population. The consistency of themes in these articles demonstrate that educational interventions through effective messaging can reduce the adverse effects of Covid-19 by allowing those affected or not to have vaccination. All the articles show limitations based on their settings and researchers’ overall aim of their research work. However, their conclusions are emphatic that using educational approaches improve confidence in the Covid-19 leading to the willingness for individuals to have their shots or jabs to prevent the spread of the disease. None of the articles discusses any controversy but explore the effects of Covid-19 information and awareness among different demographics in the country and the world at large.
Suggestions for Future Research
These articles provide existing evidence on the efficacy of having health education to improve uptake of Covid-19 vaccines in the general population. However, there is need for future research as intimated by a majority of the researchers. The identified gaps include demonstrating beyond doubt that the use of health education and how it can enhance uptake of Covid-19 vaccines among individuals in society. Future research needs to focus on interventions that can be implemented through technologies to improve confidence in the vaccines and overall efforts to deal with the pandemic. Education is essential in improving uptake of Covid-19 jabs since inoculated people do not depend on misinformation to accept or decline the vaccines.
The review of literature demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed intervention by the PICOT question. As such, this synthesis paper illustrates that the intervention is effective and should be embraced by all interested in getting vaccines. These articles emphasize the need for information and awareness to improve uptake and acceptance of the vaccines as developed by the World Health Organization.
Davis, C. J., Golding, M., & McKay, R. (2022). Efficacy information influences the intention to
take the COVID‐19 vaccine. British Journal of Health Psychology, 27(2), 300-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12546
Piltch-Loeb, R., Su, M., Hughes, B., Testa, M., Goldberg, B., Braddock, K., … & Savoia, E.
(2022). Testing the Efficacy of attitudinal inoculation videos to enhance COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: quasi-experimental intervention trial. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 8(6), e34615. https://doi.org/10.2196/34615
James, E. K., Bokemper, S. E., Gerber, A. S., Omer, S. B., & Huber, G. A. (2021). Persuasive
messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. Vaccine, 39(49), 7158-7165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.10.039
Jensen, U. T., Ayers, S., & Koskan, A. M. (2022). Video-based messages to reduce COVID-19
vaccine hesitancy and nudge vaccination intentions. PloS One, 17(4), e0265736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265
Kaim, A., Siman-Tov, M., Jaffe, E., & Adini, B. (2021). Effect of a concise educational program
on COVID-19 vaccination attitudes. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 767447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.767447
Li, P. C., Theis, S. R., Kelly, D., Ocampo, T., Berglund, A., Morgan, D., … & Burtson, K.
(2022). Impact of an education intervention on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Military Medicine, 187(Special Issue_13), e1516-e1522. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usab363
Miller, J. D., Ackerman, M. S., Laspra, B., Polino, C., & Huffaker, J. S. (2022). Public attitude
toward Covid‐19 vaccination: The influence of education, partisanship, biological literacy, and coronavirus understanding. The FASEB Journal, 36(7). https://doi.org/10.1096%2Ffj.202200730
Motta, M., Sylvester, S., Callaghan, T., & Lunz-Trujillo, K. (2021). Encouraging COVID-19
vaccine uptake through effective health communication. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 630133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.630133
Piltch-Loeb, R., Savoia, E., Goldberg, B., Hughes, B., Verhey, T., Kayyem, J., … & Testa, M.
(2021). Examining the effect of information channels on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Plos One, 16(5), e0251095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251095
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS
Discussion Questions (DQ)
Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
APA Format and Writing Quality
Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
Use of Direct Quotes
I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.
Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:
Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.