Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature
For the DNP-prepared nurse, it is important to hone skills related to reviewing and evaluating research literature to implement evidence-based practices. As you examine epidemiological research, in particular, it is essential to ask, “What are the strengths and weakness of the research method(s)? Are the data analysis and interpretation sound? Is there any evidence of bias?” This Discussion provides you and your colleagues valuable practice in critically analyzing research literature.
To prepare:
With this week’s Learning Resources in mind, reflect on the importance of analyzing epidemiological research studies.
Critically appraise the Oppenheimer (2010) and Elliott, Smith, Penny, Smith and Chambers (1999) articles presented in the Learning Resources using Appendix A in Epidemiology for Public Health Practice as a guide.
Determine the strengths and weaknesses of the research methods and data analysis of each study.
Ask yourself, “Is any bias evident in either study? What did the researchers do to control for potential bias?”
Finally, consider the importance of data interpretation in epidemiologic literature and the issues that may arise if potential confounding factors are not considered.
By Day 5
Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:
Appraise the Oppenheimer (2010) and Elliott et al. (1999) articles, summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of each study.
Analyze potential sources of bias in each study, and suggest strategies for minimizing bias.
Suggest possible confounding variables that may have influenced the results of each study.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 7
Respond to at least two of your colleagues 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. Make a suggestion 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.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Discussion 2
One of the strengths of the Oppenheimer (2010) study is that it provides an in depth perspective into the Framingham Heart study and also cites multiple sources ad reviews that also addressed this study. Basically, the study is rich in detail with respect to the primary study object. Additionally, reviewing these peer review studies from the past regarding the FHS reduces potential bias in the study by limiting individual opinion. However, this study is not without limitations. For instance, its generalizability and reliability is a major challenge. For such a review, implementing these study results elsewhere could be a potential issue. Another limitation of this study is the fact that it is inflexible.
The Elliot (1999) study has its fair share of strengths and limitations. One of the strengths of this study is that it had a significantly large sample size. The sample size of a study is directly correlated with the generalizability of the study. As such, this study has a greater generalizability. It also has a higher versatility because these study results can be used for purposes of comparison/simulation. While the study used a large sample size, the data generated might not necessarily be robust enough to explain complex issues and this brings up the issue of the article’s reliability.
Considering the fact that the Oppenheimer (2010) study reviews past studies and literature, potential sources of bias include recall and conformation issues. The cited literature, for instance, could suffer from recall bias, affecting the validity of the Oppenheimer (2010) study. Additionally, the authors of this article could be selecting articles that confirm their standpoint. The same case applies for the Elliot (1999) study where selection of participants introduces selection bias. The best strategy to eliminating/managing these biases would be to apply randomization where past literature and participants are selected randomly.
Confounding variables are those that affect other variables in a way that produces spurious or distorted associations between two variables. They confound the “true” relationship between two variables. I believe the Elliot (1999) study was most affected by these variables because it involves collecting data from participants. There are several factors that weren’t accounted for by the studies that affected the relationship between the variables being studied.
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.
The post NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature appeared first on NursingPaperSlayers.
Comments