USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACITICE NURS 8201

USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACITICE NURS 8201

Sample Answer for USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACITICE NURS 8201 Included After Question

Chronic pain affects millions of Americans. Diagnosing, treating, and understanding chronic pain creates many challenges for healthcare. Is the challenge on how  to properly diagnose and manage a patient’s pain? Or is the challenge on whether or not to prescribe pain medications given the concerns with addiction as a result of the opioid epidemic?

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Consider the questions posed above. How might the use of qualitative and quantitative methods serve to provide answers for researchers regarding the challenges associated with chronic pain? What can qualitative data provide that quantitative data cannot, and vice versa? How might a mixed methods approach fill in the gaps to provide a clearer understanding of the problem and potential solutions?

For this Discussion, reflect on an issue or problem in healthcare that may benefit from a mixed methods approach. Think about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods and designs, as well as how these two methods might work well together. Consider how a mixed methods approach supports evidence-based practice.

To Prepare:

• Review the Learning Resources for this week and consider the differences between qualitative and quantitative research designs and methods.
• Consider an example of a topic or issue in nursing in which both qualitative and quantitative research approaches might be necessary,
• Reflect on how a mixed methods approach lends itself to evidence-based practice.

By Day 3 of Week 11

Post an explanation of when it might be most useful to use both qualitative and quantitative approaches or mixed methods to support a research design. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain whether a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches are used in systematic reviews to support evidence-based practice. Be specific.

By Day 6 of Week 11

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.
• 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

To access your rubric:

Week 11 Discussion Rubric

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACITICE NURS 8201

Post by Day 3 of Week 11 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 11

To Participate in this Discussion:

USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACITICE NURS 8201

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACITICE NURS 8201

Title: USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACITICE NURS 8201

Mixed-Method

The mixed-method encompasses both qualitative and quantitative methods. The mixed-method has become common in recent times due to the growing complexity of nursing (Campbell, Tam-Tham, Dhaliwal, Manns, Hemmelgarn, Sanmartin, & King-Shier, 2017). An example of a mixed-method can be demonstrated by research conducted to determine the stress levels of nurses in a psychiatric ward. The research would first involve a quantitative approach, which will entail the collection of data based on the level of stress of the participants. A 5-point Likert scale could be deployed to measure the level of stress. The data could then be analyzed using quantitative statistical methods such as mean, mode, standard deviation, and t-test to determine whether the stress levels are normal. Once the quantitative study has been completed, a qualitative study could be carried out to assess nurses’ experiences in the psychiatric ward that could result in escalated stress levels. Data could be collected using interviews. The data analysis could involve determining topics and drawing relevant themes (Campbell et al., 2017).

The mixed method has several advantages in research. First, the research can quantify data and further explore other relevant themes that a quantitative study cannot determine. This results in better enrichment of evidence and a comprehensive understanding of the research question (Oliveira, Magalhães, & MisueMatsuda, 2018). The other advantage is that participants can give more details in a mixed-method hence more accurate research. The mixed method also has several limitations. The first limitation is its complexity. The method requires thorough training to ensure researchers conduct the exercise effectively. The other limitation is that it might require more resources. Additional personnel and lengthy research periods could be witnessed in the mixed method compared to the single methods. A multidisciplinary team might also be required to conduct the research. The multidisciplinary team might not be readily available.

References

Campbell, D. J., Tam-Tham, H., Dhaliwal, K. K., Manns, B. J., Hemmelgarn, B. R., Sanmartin, C., & King-Shier, K. (2017). Use of mixed methods research in research on coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension: a scoping review. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 10(1), e003310.

Oliveira, J. L. C. D., Magalhães, A. M. M. D., & MisueMatsuda, L. (2018). Métodos mistos na pesquisa em enfermagem: possibilidades de aplicação à luz de Creswell. Texto & Contexto-Enfermagem, 27(2).

A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACITICE NURS 8201

Title: USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACITICE NURS 8201

Integrating homeopathic medicine in the ICU

For as long as I can remember, working here in the government hospital that provides a multidisciplinary centered care towards a multicultural population (i.e. Micronesians, Asians, etc.), I can safely say that most nurses are well representing their patient when it comes to homeopathic medication regimens. I have noticed that some patients have asked the nurses and the physicians about the incorporation of homeopathic medications into their regimen and most physicians are not well adapted into accepting into their current practice. In addition, about 50% of the nurse ratios understand the importance of accepting the incorporation of homeopathic medications into their regimen, just as along as it does not complication or provide an adverse reaction with their current plan of care. Overall, I wanted to understand the importance of combining conventional therapies alongside alternative practices to help control uncomfortable symptoms and understand why most healthcare physicians are not susceptive to accepting integrative medicine.

The homeopathic medications are considered alternative or complementary forms of therapy that some patients use. According to Eldridge (2021), homeopathic medicine are considered “like cures” in small amount may provide protection and/or reduce symptoms from their current illness. Some examples of homeopathic medications include the use of multivitamins, over the counter medications, immunity supplements, and the use of essential oils (Micronesian islands). Although, the ideas of implementing these homeopathic medications in their current medical regimen while being treated in an acute care setting can be frowned upon, as a DNP prepared nurse, it is our role to determine what may work best for our patients and would increase medical compliance.

Treatments of chronic diseases has become an enabling a holistic approach and improving the patient to physician relationship of therapy that would assist in chronic disease ailments. However, there is still little studies done on homeopathy in treatment of acute disease; often due to lack of study and a knowledge gap that is responsibility for the inability and fear in treating acute disease processes. I understand how physicians feel about incorporating homeopathic therapy in a fast paced environment that deals with life and death, with little time to act, however, what initially sparked my interest is that a physician that I worked with in the ICU is not opposed to incorporating homeopathic therapies that may help the patient feel comfortable. Also, there is now an increasing dissemination worldwide on various types of complementary and alternative medicine; ones that should and can be used as complementary treatment in all healthcare fields. As a nurses, we often are in the middle or representing our patients on their road to recovery, as long as their believed homeopathic treatments do not interfere with western medicine.

Appropriate research development in homeopathy and the nature of its existing research evidence needs to be examined objectively and with transparency. One way to approach this study is through a mix method approach. It is a type of research method in which researchers collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative within the same study. According to Shorten & Smith (2022), mixed methods draw potential strengths on both qualitative and quantitative methods, both allowing to explore diverse perspectives and uncover relationships that exist between the intricate layers of multifaceted research question. This an essential step in the mixed method is the data linkage and integration at an appropriate stage in the research process.

In a mixed method systematic review done by Mathie et.al. (2017),  individualized homeopathic treatment versus placebo evaluation of interventions allocated to each participant. Quantitative studies were done using systematic literature of about 533 record search to identify different randomized control trials (RCT) that compared homeopathy with a placebo, for any clinical condition. The qualitative part of the study included two sub groups that included N=75 participants of random data including demographics: gender, age, and medical condition; in a six month trial. This study included 54 different randomized trials of homeopathic medication use and of the 31 continuous trials; none had an effect statistically significantly favoring homeopathy and no trials favored the placebo. In the 23 trials of dichotomous data, about six had an effect statistically significant favoring homeopathy. As a result, all subgroups favored homeopathy as an investment when dealing with their acute or chronic diseases.

 

Reference(s):

Eldridge, L. (2021). What homeopathic medicine? VeryWell Health. Retrieved from

https://www.verywellhealth.com/homeopathic-medicine-description-2249111

Mathie, R., Ramparasad, N., Legg, L., Clausen, J., Moss, S., Davidson, J…McConnachie, A.

(2017). Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualized homeopathic treatment: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Journal. 6(36). Retrieved from https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-017-0445-3

Shorten, A. & Smith, J. (2022). Mixed methods research: Expanding the evidence base. BMJ

Journals. 20(3). Retrieved from https://ebn.bmj.com/content/20/3/74

Bottom of Form

 

• Grid View
• List View

		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