Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

NUR 550 Evidence-Based Practice Project Evaluation of Literature Table Essay

NUR 550 Evidence-Based Practice Project Evaluation of Literature Table Essay

Learner Name:

PICOT:

 


Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink or Working Link to Access Article

 

Article Title and Year Published

 

Research Questions/Hypothesis, and Purpose/Aim of Study

 

Design (Quantitative, Qualitative, or other)

 

Setting/Sample

 

Methods: Intervention/Instruments

 

Analysis/Data Collection

 

Outcomes/Key Findings

 

Recommendations

 

Explanation of How the Article Supports Your Proposed EBP Practice Project Proposal
Levin, T. R., Corley, D. A., Jensen, C. D., Schottinger, J. E., Quinn, V. P., Zauber, A. G., … & Doubeni, C. A. (2018). Effects of organized colorectal cancer screening on cancer incidence and mortality in a large community-based population. Gastroenterology, 155(5), 1383-1391. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.017  

Effects of Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in a Large Community-Based Population.

(2018)

 

Aim: To evaluate whether an organized CRC screening program can achieve and sustain the ≥80% screening target proposed by national organizations.

To evaluate whether changes in screening are associated with changes in CRC incidence and mortality.

Quantitative observation study. Setting- Large, community-based population

Kaiser Permanente Northern California members 51–75 years of age

Intervention- Organized screening outreach by y fecal test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy. Contrasted screening rates, age-adjusted annual CRC incidence, and incidence-based mortality rates before and after the intervention.

Analysis- χ2 tests

Initiation of organized CRC screening significantly increased the status of screening.

Higher rates of screening led to a reduction in annual CRC incidence.

Decreased early-stage and advanced-stage CRC incidence rates.

Recommends organized CRC screening in integrated health care system. The article supports the PICOT since it reveals that increasing CRC screening in the community can help in detecting and reducing CRC incidence among adults.
Dominitz, J. A., Robertson, D. J., Ahnen, D. J., Allison, J. E., Antonelli, M., Boardman, K. D., … & CONFIRM Study Group. (2017). Colonoscopy vs. fecal immunochemical test in reducing mortality from colorectal cancer (CONFIRM): rationale for study design. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 112(11), 1736-1746. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2017.286 Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test for Reducing Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Population-Based Case–Control Study.

(2017)

To compare the association of CRC risk with colonoscopy and FIT using a nationwide database. Population-based case–control study Setting- Korean National Health Insurance System.

61,221 patients with newly diagnosed CRC (case group) and 306,099 individuals without CRC (control group).

CRC screening with FIT or colonoscopy. Data was collected from the National Health Information Database of the National Health Insurance System.

Analysis- Multivariable logistic regression

Colonoscopy was linked with a reduced subsequent CRC risk.

FIT demonstrated lower CRC risk reduction than colonoscopy.

Increased frequency of cumulative FIT assessments was associated with reduced CRC risk and stronger prevention.

The article recommends systematic quality management of colonoscopy in addition to continued participation in fecal occult blood tests for CRC prevention at the population level. The article supports my PICOT since it establishes that regular FIT assessments can increase the detection rate of CRC.
Chiu, H. M., Jen, G. H. H., Wang, Y. W., Fann, J. C. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Jeng, Y. C., … & Chen, T. H. H. (2021). Long-term effectiveness of faecal immunochemical test screening for proximal and distal colorectal cancers. Gut. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322545 Long-term effectiveness of faecal immunochemical test screening for proximal and distal colorectal cancers.

(2021)

To measure the effects of FIT for CRC screening on overall and site-specific long-term effectiveness of population-based organized service screening. Quantitative Prospective cohort study. Setting- Taiwan

Sample- 5 417 699 subjects.

Individuals who underwent at least one FIT screening during the study  period formed the exposed group, while the rest of the population constituted the unexposed group.

Intervention- Biennial FIT screening. Data on incident of advanced-stage CRC and deaths was obtained from national cancer registry and national death registry.

Analysis- Bayesian Poisson regression models

FIT screening  reduced the incidence of advanced-stage CRC  and mortality.

FIT screening was more effective in reducing distal advanced-stage CRCs than proximal advanced CRCs.

The article recommends having a strong and consistent evidence-based policy to support a sustainable population-based FIT organized service screening globally. The article supports the PICOT since it proves that FIT screening is effective in reducing the risk of advanced-stage CRC and mortality through early detection and treatment.
Zhong, G. C., Sun, W. P., Wan, L., Hu, J. J., & Hao, F. B. (2020). Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 91(3), 684-697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.035 Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test versus colonoscopy in

colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

(2019)

To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of FIT and colonoscopy in CRC screening in average-risk population Quantitative Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. The study included 6 randomized controlled trials and 17 cost-effectiveness studies.

 

Comparison of annual or biennial fecal FIT with one-time colonoscopy Researchers conducted an electronic search from PubMed, Embase, and National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database.

 

Participation rate in FIT was higher than in colonoscopy.

FIT had a detection rate of CRC comparable with  and lower detection rates of any adenoma and advanced adenoma than one-time colonoscopy.

Annual or biennial FIT was cost-saving than colonoscopy every 10 years.

The study recommends implementation of FIT-based screening programs globally to increase CRC detection rates. The article shows that annual FIT can be effective and cost-saving in detecting CRC and can increase screening rates for average-risk population.

Therefore, annual FIT screening can be implemented in my PICOT.

Buskermolen, M., Cenin, D. R., Helsingen, L. M., Guyatt, G., Vandvik, P. O., Haug, U., Bretthauer, M., & Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I. (2019). Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a microsimulation modelling study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.)367, l5383. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5383 Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a microsimulation modelling study.

(2019)

To estimate benefits and harms of different CRC screening strategies, stratified by 15-year CRC risk. Quantitative Microsimulation modelling study. Norwegian males and females aged 50-79 years with varying 15-year colorectal cancer risk of 1-7%. Each cohort was assessed with four colorectal cancer screening strategies over a 15-year period: biennial FIT, annual FIT, a single sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. All strategies were compared with no screening.

The population cohorts were followed-up for 15 years.

The study obtained data on age-, sex-, stage-, and localization-specific CRC incidence and survival from the Norwegian Cancer Registry.

 

 

Screening individuals 50-79 years at risk of CRC with annual FIT or single colonoscopy CRC mortality by 6 per 1000 persons.

Annual FIT reduced colorectal cancer incidence by 4 per 1000 individuals.

Biennial FIT had an estimated serious harm of 3 per 1000.

The study recommends basing CRC screening on an individual’s cancer risk, determined by age and sex due to the risks and benefits of the three screening strategies. The study supports the PICOT since it shows that the use of FIT to screen for  CRC reduces CRC incidence.
Knapp, G. C., Alatise, O., Olopade, B., Samson, M., Olasehinde, O., Wuraola, F., … & Kingham, T. P. (2021). Feasibility and performance of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for average-risk colorectal cancer screening in Nigeria. Plos one, 16(1), e0243587. Feasibility and performance of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for average-risk colorectal cancer screening in Nigeria.

(2021)

To evaluate the feasibility and performance of FIT in Nigeria. Quantitative prospective, single-arm study. Setting- Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital.

Sample- 379 individuals aged 46–58 years.

Intervention- qualitative FIT testing. Participants were administered an enrollment questionnaire to obtain data on socio-demographic variables and recent medical history.

Participants obtained fresh stool specimen for parasite testing as and completed FIT kit for analysis.

89.7% of participants with a positive FIT had a follow-up colonoscopy.

Of the 89.7% 9.8%  had an adenoma and 4.9%  had advanced adenomas.

82% of participants found the FIT easy to use.

The study recommends CRC screening with FIT since it is feasible and well tolerated.

 

The article supports the PICOT since it reveals that FIT is a feasible and tolerable screening method that can be used in early detection
Jahn, B., Sroczynski, G., Bundo, M., Mühlberger, N., Puntscher, S., Todorovic, J., … & Siebert, U. (2019). Effectiveness, benefit harm and cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Austria. BMC gastroenterology19(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-019-1121-y Effectiveness, benefit harm and cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Austria.

(2019)

To evaluate the long-term effectiveness, harms and cost effectiveness of different organized CRC screening strategies in Austria. Qualitative decision-analytic cohort simulation design. Setting- Austria

Sample- General population with average CRC risk.

Intervention- Four screening strategies: No Screening; Annual FIT at 40–75 years; Annual Gfobt at 40–75 years; 10-yearly colonoscopy at age 50–70 years Epidemiological data including cancer incidence and cancer stage distribution, and CRC-specific were obtained from Statistics Austria.

Data on direct medical costs were obtained from the Austrian public-health care system.

The most effective strategies in CRC screening were FIT and Colonoscopy.

gFOBT was less effective and more costly than FIT.

The article recommends using organized CRC-screening with annual FIT or 10-yearly colonoscopy in CRC screening since they are the most effective.

The choice between the two options should depend on the individual preferences and benefit-harm tradeoffs of screening individuals.

The study supports the PICOT by establishing that FIT is an effective CRC screening option that can be used in early detection and treatment of CRC.
Larsen, M. B., Njor, S., Ingeholm, P., & Andersen, B. (2018). Effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in detecting earlier-stage disease—a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Gastroenterology, 155(1), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.03.062 Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Detecting Earlier-Stage Disease—A Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark.

(2018)

To evaluate the effectiveness of FIT-based screening for CRC on the number of incident CRC diagnoses and stage at diagnosis for persons in Denmark who were invited for screening versus not yet invited. Quantitative retrospective cohort study. Setting- Denmark

Sample- 402,826 residents of Denmark aged 50–72 years old were randomly invited to undergo CRC screening within the study period, and 956,514 were invited thereafter.

Intervention- CRC screening with FIT. Data on CRC diagnosis, date, and stage was obtained from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Inviting individuals to undergo FIT-based CRC screening led to detection of almost 2-fold more cases of CRC than not inviting participants. The study recommends the need for awareness of treatment capacity in countries introducing FIT-based CRC screening. The study supports the PICOT since it proves that CRC screening programs improve early detection and provision of appropriate follow-up for positive tests and treatment for polyps.
Sekiguchi, M., Igarashi, A., Sakamoto, T., Saito, Y., Esaki, M., & Matsuda, T. (2020). Cost‐effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and risk score. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 35(9), 1555-1561. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15033 Cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal cancer screening using colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and risk score.

(2020)

To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of population-based CRC screening strategies using CS, FIT, and the Japanese CRC screening score. The study applies a quantitative simulation model analysis. Setting- Markov state, Japan.

Sample- average-risk individuals aged 40–74 years

Intervention- Screening strategies with primary screening: Colonoscopy, FIT, and the Japanese CRC screening score. Data on age and sex distribution of the study sample was obtained from the Japanese Society of Gastrointestinal Cancer Screening. Colonoscopy gained the gained the highest Quality-adjusted life years but required the highest cost.

FIT  was found to be more effective and cost-effective than no screening.

The study recommends that if non-invasive tests are preferred by individuals, other screening strategies, such as FIT can be more effective and cost-effective. The study supports the use of FIT screening in average-risk persons since it is more effective than failing to screen.

The intervention can thus be applied in my PICOT.

Shapiro, J. A., Bobo, J. K., Church, T. R., Rex, D. K., Chovnick, G., Thompson, T. D., … & Nadel, M. R. (2017). A comparison of fecal immunochemical and high-sensitivity guaiac tests for colorectal cancer screening. The American journal of gastroenterology, 112(11), 1728. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2017.285 A Comparison of Fecal Immunochemical and High-Sensitivity Guaiac Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

(2017)

To compare the performance characteristics of the HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA and two FITs, nSure FIT and OC FIT-CHEK, for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia. Quantitative Experimental design. Setting- Minneapolis and Indianapolis metropolitan areas.

Sample- 1,006 asymptomatic patients, aged 50–75 years.

Intervention- CSR screening with HS-gFOBT Hemoccult II SENSA, InSure FIT, and OC FIT-CHEK. The participants were asked to complete sample collection for three types of FOBTs (one HS-gFOBT and two FITs) before their colonoscopy. Sensitivity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia was highest for InSure FIT, followed by OC FIT-CHEK, and Hemoccult II SENSA The study recommends the use of FITs than the HS-gFOBT since FITs are more sensitive. The study supports the use of FIT for CRC screening similar to the PICOT to help in detecting CRC in average-risk persons.

Description:

The purpose of this assignment is to provide research evidence in support of the PICOT you developed for your selected topic.

Conduct a search for 10 peer-reviewed, translational research articles published within the last 5 years that demonstrate support for your PICOT. You may include previous research articles from assignments completed in this course. Use the “Literature Evaluation Table” provided to evaluate the articles and explain how the research supports your PICOT.

Once your instructor returns this assignment, review the feedback and make any revisions necessary. If you are directed by your instructor to select different articles in order to meet the assignment criteria or to better support your PICOT, make these changes accordingly. You will use the literature evaluated in this assignment for all subsequent assignments you develop as part of your evidence-based practice project proposal in this course and in NUR-590, during which you will synthesize all of the sections into a final written paper detailing your evidence-based practice project proposal.

Refer to the “Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal – Assignment Overview” document for an overview of the evidence-based practice project proposal assignments.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

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 not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

Topic 5 DQ 1

Description:

Identify either a safety or quality improvement initiative related to improving population health. Explain how translational research can influence the development of the initiative. Include a specific example to support your response.

Topic 5 DQ 2

Description:

Identify a quality initiative from your workplace. What were some barriers to implementation? What are common barriers for translating research into practice?

Topic 5 Participation

Description:

NA

Topic 5: Translating Evidence into Practice to Improve Safety and Quality and Eliminate Barriers

Description

Objectives:

1. Explain how translational research can be used for safety and quality improvement initiatives related to improving population health.
2. Discuss common barriers for translating research into practice.
Study Materials

Read Chapter 8 in Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness.

Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare

Description:

Read Chapters 4 and 9 in Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare.

Translating Evidence into Practice: How Advanced Practice RNs Can Guide Nurses in Challenging Established Practice to Arrive at Best Practice
Description:

Read “Translating Evidence into Practice: How Advanced Practice RNs Can Guide Nurses in Challenging Established Practice to Arrive at Best Practice,” by Fenci and Matthews, from AORN Journal(2017).

Eliminating Cardiovascular Health Disparities: There has Been Progress, but There is More to
Do!

Description:

Read “Eliminating Cardiovascular Health Disparities: There has Been Progress, but There is More to Do!” by Coke, from The Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing (2018).

Quality Improvement in Athletic Health Care

Description:

Read “Quality Improvement in Athletic Health Care,” by Sauers, Sauers, and Valier, from Journal of Athletic Training
(2017).

Lost in Translation: The Promise and Problems of the Globalization of Research

Description:

Re: Topic 5 DQ 11

With Health care ever increasing on the improvement of patient outcome to help decrease cost of patient care and to qualify for CMS reimbursements, safety and quality improvement initiatives are increasing and are to help with all patient outcomes improve (Gregory, 2015). A Quality improvement initiative is a metric set by nursing leadership or institution to improve health care that had direct correlation between improved health care and patient outcome.

Surgical site infections (SSI) are the most common health care associated infection s and is over 300,000/year costing over $3 million a year is preventable cost as well as further complications for a patient. While there are many factors that affect patient outcomes such as obesity and diabetes there is evidence of ways to prevent SSIs with standardized bundling of care (WSHA, 2020). In my facility we monitor SSIs as an infection control measure, yet Cesarean sections were not included in this measure. On my unit this last year we had and increase incidence of SSI of c-sections which, this led us to look at following a protocol to see how we can decrease this incidence and improve patient care. Over 12% of Cesarean sections will have the result of an SSI(Shea & Soper, 2019). Through research of the evidence of SSI bundles we too this research and partnered with our infection control department, we instituted the same SSI bundle as all our gynecological surgeries including a Chlorhexidine pre-op and monitoring postop. Utilizing the steps laid out with the bundles we are hoping to see an improvement in the awareness and education to patients and are monitoring our SSI rate. SSIs can be very detrimental to any patient and that of a new mother can affect the care of the newborn as well. Decreasing SSIs will not only improve patient outcomes it also financially affects the facility by shorter LOS and readmissions.

Gregory, K. E. (2015). Differentiating between research and quality improvement. Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing29(2), 100–102. https://doi.org/10.1097/jpn.0000000000000107

Shea, S. K., & Soper, D. E. (2019). Prevention of cesarean delivery surgical site infections. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey74(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0000000000000645

WSHA. (2020). Surgical site infections. Washington state Hospital Association. Retrieved July 16, 2021, from https://www.wsha.org/quality-safety/projects/infections/ssi/

 

RESPOND HERE (150 WORDS, 3 REFERENCES)

Hello Deana,

I do agree with you that the concept of quality care in health is a metric measure that accesses the rate of recovery and the patient satisfaction. Healthcare organizations have a responsibility of ensuring that they deliver care affordable and quality. Surgical site infections (SSI) are one of the main challenges faced by healthcare providers in enhancing patient recovery and reduced chances of readmission (Coccolini et al., 2021). The use of EBP projects to come up with appropriate clinical and nursing measures to implement safety has been an area of concern. Nurse leaders and managers have spearheaded initiatives aimed at reducing cases of SSI. However, these initiatives have faced challenges especially the gap between EBP outcomes and implementation. This is where translational research comes in to help bridge the gap and have the proposed changes implemented successfully. This calls on standardized clinical procedures that are well adhered to by all the stakeholders. There is also need to carry out routine inspections to help assess the safety of the patients undergoing surgical operations and follow up on the recovery process (Weenink et al., 2020).

References

Coccolini, F., Improta, M., Cicuttin, E., Catena, F., Sartelli, M., Bova, R., de’ Angelis, N., Gitto, S., Tartaglia, D., Cremonini, C., Ordonez, C., Baiocchi, G. L., & Chiarugi, M. (2021). Surgical site infection prevention and management in immunocompromised patients: a systematic review of the literature. World Journal of Emergency Surgery, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-021-00375-y

Weenink, J.-W., Wallenburg, I., Leistikow, I., & Bal, R. A. (2020). Publication of inspection frameworks: a qualitative study exploring the impact on quality improvement and regulation in three healthcare settings. BMJ Quality & Safety, bmjqs-2020-011337. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011337

Read “Lost in Translation: The Promise and Problems of the Globalization of Research,” by Baumann, from Nursing Science Quarterly (2019).

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:  NUR 550 Evidence-Based Practice Project Evaluation of Literature Table Essay

Decreasing Barriers to Research Utilization Among Labor and Delivery Nurses

Description:

Read “Decreasing Barriers to Research Utilization Among Labor and Delivery Nurses,” by Heelan-Fancher, Edmonds, and Jones, from Nursing Research (2019).

Differentiating Between Research and Quality Improvement

Description:

Read “Differentiating Between Research and Quality Improvement,” by Gregory, from Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing (2015).

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NUR-550 NUR-550-O503 Evidence-Based Practice Project: Evaluation of Literature Table 150.0

Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less Than Satisfactory (80.00%) Satisfactory (88.00%) Good (92.00%) Excellent (100.00%)
Content 100.0%
PICOT 5.0% The PICOT is omitted. NA NA NA The PICOT is clearly and accurately presented.

Research Question, Hypothesis, Purpose or Aim of Study 10.0% Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for one or more articles is omitted. Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. Research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study for each article is adequately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. A discussion on the research question, hypothesis, purpose or aim of study is thoroughly and accurately presented for each article.

Articles 10.0% Required number of sources are not included. Article citations and permalinks are omitted. Number of required sources is only partially met. Article citations and permalinks are presented. One or more links do not lead to the intended article. Number of required sources is met, but some sources are outdated or inappropriate. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are errors. Sources are current and generally appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are presented, but there are minor errors. Sources are current and highly appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Article citations and permalinks are presented. Article citations are accurate. NUR 550 Evidence-Based Practice Project Evaluation of Literature Table

Study Design 10.0% The study design for one or more article is omitted. The study design for each article is presented, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. The study design is indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. The study design is adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. A thorough and accurate discussion on the study design for each article is presented.

Setting and Sample 10.0% The setting and sample are omitted for one or more of the articles. The setting and sample are indicated for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. The setting and sample are indicated for each article. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. The setting and sample are adequately presented for each article. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. The setting and sample in which the researcher conducted the study are detailed and accurate for each article.

Methods 10.0% Method of study for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the methods of study are incomplete. The method of study is presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. The method of study for each article is presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. A thorough and accurate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented.  NUR 550 Evidence-Based Practice Project Evaluation of Literature Table

NUR 550 Evidence-Based Practice Project Evaluation of Literature Table Analysis and Data Collection 10.0% Analysis and data collection for one or more articles is omitted. Overall, the analysis and data collection are incomplete. Analysis and data collection are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. Analysis and data collection for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. An adequate discussion on the method of study for each article is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. A thorough and accurate discussion on the analysis and data collection for each article is presented.

Outcomes and Key Findings 10.0% Outcomes and key findings for one or more articles are omitted. Overall, the outcomes and key findings are incomplete. Outcomes and key findings are presented for each article, but key information is consistently omitted. There are inaccuracies throughout. Outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Key aspects are missing for one or two articles. There are minor inaccuracies. An adequate discussion on outcomes and key findings for each article are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. A thorough and accurate discussion on the outcomes and key findings collection for each article are presented.

Recommendations 10.0% Researcher recommendations are omitted for one or more of the articles. The recommendations described for three or more articles are inaccurate or incomplete. Researcher recommendations are indicated for each article. The researcher recommendations described for two of the articles are inaccurate or incomplete. Researcher recommendations for each article are presented. Researcher recommendations described for one article are inaccurate or incomplete. Researcher recommendations for each article are accurately presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. Researcher recommendations are accurately and thoroughly described for each article.

Explanation of How Articles Support Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal 10.0% An explanation of how the article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is omitted for one or more of the articles. The explanation for three or more articles is inaccurate or incomplete. An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for two of the articles is inaccurate or incomplete. A general explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. The explanation for one article is inaccurate or incomplete. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is generally evident. An explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy or clarity. Adequate support for the evidence-based project proposal is demonstrated. A detailed explanation for how each article supports the proposed evidence-based practice project proposal is presented. Support for the evidence-based project proposal is clearly evident.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.