For this Assignment, you will analyze a meta-analysis article and consider the implications of this research design for nursing practice, building on this week’s Discussion

For this Assignment, you will analyze a meta-analysis article and consider the implications of this research design for nursing practice, building on this week’s Discussion

For this Assignment, you will analyze a meta-analysis article and consider the implications of this research design for nursing practice, building on this week’s Discussion

META-ANALYSES

In epidemiology, meta-analyses are becoming a common research design. They are also “the most frequently cited form of clinical research,” and as such are an important type of study for the advanced practice nurse to be familiar with (Haidich, 2010).

For this Assignment, you will analyze a meta-analysis article and consider the implications of this research design for nursing practice, building on this week’s Discussion.

Reference:

Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia, 14(Suppl. 1), 29–37. https://www.hippokratia.gr/images/PDF/14Sup1/699.pdf

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Driscoll, A., Grant, M. J., Carroll, D., Dalton, S., Deaton, C., Jones, I., Lehwaldt, D., McKee, G., Munyombwe, T., & Astin, F. (2018). The effect of nurse-to-patient ratios on nurse-sensitive patient outcomes in acute specialist units: A systematic review and meta-analysisLinks to an external site.. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 17(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515117721561

Seidler, A. L., Hunter, K. E., Cheyne, S., Berlin, J. A., Ghersi, D., & Askie, L. M. (2020). Prospective meta-analyses and Cochrane’s role in embracing next-generation methodologiesLinks to an external site.. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, ED000145. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000145

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsLinks to an external site.. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001

Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical researchLinks to an external site.. Hippokratia, 14 (Suppl. 1), 29–37. https://www.hippokratia.gr/images/PDF/14Sup1/699.pdf

Melnyk, B. M., Kelly, S. A., Stephens, J., Dhakal, K., McGovern, C., Tucker, S., Hoying, J., McRae, K., Ault, S., Spurlock, E., & Bird, S. B. (2020). Interventions to improve mental health, well-being, physical health, and lifestyle behaviors in physicians and nurses: A systematic reviewLinks to an external site.. American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(8), 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120920451

Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-synthesesLinks to an external site.. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

TO PREPARE:

Using the Walden Library, locate a peer-reviewed article that utilizes a meta-analysis design and examines a population health topic that interests you. Your article must be a meta-analysis specifically, not just a systematic review.

THE ASSIGNMENT:

In 2–3 pages, not including title page and references, address the following:

Identify your selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis.

Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why not.

Do you agree with the conclusions? Explain why or why not.

Explain how you could apply implications from the study to your nursing practice.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 8

Submit your Assignment.

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK8Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial

Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.

Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

NURS_8310_Week8_Assignment_Rubric

NURS_8310_Week8_Assignment_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn 2–3 pages, not including title page and references, address the following:Identify your selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis.
20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

The article is clearly identified. The response accurately, clearly, and concisely explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

The article is clearly identified. The response accurately explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair

The article is identified. The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.

13 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately or vaguely identifies the article and explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis, or it is missing.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWere the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why not.

20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

The response provides an accurate, clear, and concise explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with strong rationale is included.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

The response provides an accurate explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with rationale is included.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair

The response provides a somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. Critique of the researcher’s approach is somewhat vague, or rationale is inadequate.

13 to >0 pts

Poor

The response provides an inaccurate and vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected or is missing. Critique of the researcher’s approach is vague, inaccurate, unsupported, or missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDo you agree with the conclusions? Explain why or why not.
20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

A clear and concise critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates strong critical thinking is provided.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

A clear critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates some critical thinking is provided.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair

A somewhat inaccurate or vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided.

13 to >0 pts

Poor

An inaccurate and vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided, or it is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you could apply implications from the study to your nursing practice.
25 to >22.0 pts

Excellent

An accurate and detailed explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.

22 to >19.0 pts

Good

An accurate explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.

19 to >17.0 pts

Fair

A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.

17 to >0 pts

Poor

An inaccurate and vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided, or it is missing.
25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
5 pts

Total Points: 100