Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review

 

Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review

For years, healthcare has faced various problems in efforts to improve and sustain population health. While some of these problems are administrative, the other problems are illnesses that affect the population’s health negatively. One of such problems is diabetes, a chronic condition impacting an individual’s health adversely and increasing mortality and morbidity (Soyoye et al., 2020). In addition, diabetes also leads to other health complications such as lower-limb amputations and blindness among the patients. The current research indicates that individuals from minority groups and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to be negatively impacted more by diabetes. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to perform a literature review on research articles supporting the PICO question that deals with diabetes among Hispanics. The PICO question that guides this research is: In Hispanic adults with Type II diabetes mellitus (P), does a culturally tailored diabetes education program (I compared to a traditional diabetes education program (C) increase self-management of DM (O)?

Search Methods Performed

In efforts to access relevant articles that support the PICO question, a relevant search was conducted. Google scholar was instrumental in getting the relevant articles. In addition, other article databases were used for the search, including Trip database, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and CINHAL. These databases were searched using relevant keywords to obtain the required articles.

Synthesis of the Literature

Out of the relevant literature obtained from the search, Flores-Luevano et al. (2020) conducted a study on a diabetes education program and evaluated its impact on diabetes-related psychosocial, self-management, and clinical outcomes among Mexican Americans. This was a quantitative descriptive study involving two hundred and nine participants. The study showed that the intervention led to significant improvements in glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol, glucose self-monitoring, exercise, nutritional behavior, knowledge, and diabetes-related emotional distress. Benefits of the program were observed with an attendance rate as low as 50%. This source supports the proposed project since it shows that the culturally tailored interventions improve patient outcomes and shows the intervention’s feasibility in healthcare.

Goff et al. (2021) conducted research to examine the fidelity, trial feasibility, and acceptability of a culturally tailored intervention for type II diabetes. This was also a quantitative study that involved a total of fifty-five participants assigned to either intervention or the usual care group. Among the key findings was that the culturally tailored intervention was highly acceptable, with high feasibility and high fidelity. The article similarly supports the proposed project since it shows that culturally tailored interventions are effective in managing type 2 diabetes as they are highly acceptable and feasible.

Huang et al. (2019) also carried out a study with the aim of analyzing the cost-effectiveness of diabetes care in American Samoa intervention compared to standard care. The study was a randomized controlled trial involving two hundred and sixty-eight American Samoans who were randomly assigned to either control or intervention group. The analysis of the data indicated that the applied culturally tailored intervention led to a substantial reduction in HbA1c levels in the intervention group as compared to the control group. The other relevant result is that the culturally tailored intervention was cost-effective. The results from this research also support the project as it shows that culturally-tailored intervention is effective and cost-effective in controlling HbA1c levels.

Another relevant research was done by Islam et al. (2018) to examine the impact of the culturally tailored intervention on outcomes for patients living with diabetes among immigrants. The study was a quantitative study comprising of three hundred and thirty-six participants who were assigned to either intervention or the control group. The intervention comprised five 2-hour monthly group educational sessions and two one-on-one visits that lasted about 90 minutes each. The analysis of the data showed that the intervention group had a considerable reduction in HbA1c levels as compared to the control group. The intervention group also had a significant decrease in mean cholesterol, BMI, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol.  This article supports the project as culturally specific education used in the study showed improvements in diabetes outcomes.

In a systematic review, Li-Geng et al. (2020) sought to examine the cultural perspectives of East Asian Americans influencing dietary self-management of diabetes and locate relevant educational interventions. This study reviewed a total of sixteen studies, of which ten were qualitative studies while the rest were quantitative. From the analysis of the data reviewed, the participant’s beliefs regarding food impacted their ability to adapt the necessary dietary recommendations to diabetes management. The interventions played a critical role in easing the participant’s stress while modifying their diet. Therefore, the interventions were shown to result in a substantial decrease in HbA1c levels. This source supports the proposed intervention as it shows the efficacy of the various interventions.

Another study was conducted by Moore et al. (2019) to explore the use of a behavior change wheel in designing a culturally sensitive self-management support program for individuals living with diabetes in the Caribbean and African communities. This study recruited forty-one participants who were taught healthful weight management, diet, and physical activity. From the analysis, the study demonstrated that the participants had a high level of motivation to avoid diabetes-related consequences. The identified barriers to healthful behaviors included knowledge gaps about self-management behaviors. The intervention’s effectiveness was attributed to social support, change techniques, and social comparison strategies. This study supports the PICOT as it unearths various strategies that can be used in optimizing diabetes outcomes among patients living with diabetes.

Wadi et al., 2021, performed research on diabetes with the purpose of determining the effectiveness of a culturally tailored intervention in the management of HbA1c levels. This was a systematic review of sixteen randomized controlled trials. The analysis of the randomized controlled trials showed that the culturally tailored interventions led to notable improvements in the HbA1c levels. The article supports the EBP practice project by showing that culturally tailored interventions are effective in improving glycemic control in patients with type II diabetes. They also improve knowledge on diabetes self-management for the affected populations.

Yorke and Atiase (2018) also performed a systematic review to assess the impact of structural education glucose control and hypoglycemia among patients with diabetes. A total of thirty-six studies were analyzed. Most of the included studies in the review demonstrated that structured education had a significant effect on glycemic control compared to control groups. One study also demonstrated the effectiveness of the intervention on hypoglycemia. The study supports the proposed EBP project that structured interventions, including culturally tailored interventions, improve outcomes of diabetes management. They improve glycemic control and prevent hypoglycemia.

Comparison of the Research

The reviewed literature showed that the articles and the results are similar in various ways but also different. For example, the reviewed papers addressed the use of culturally specific interventions to manage diabetes. In addition, all the studies showed significant results upon the use of the interventions. While some of the articles are primary resources with study designs, others reviewed are systematic reviews that combined and analyzed various primary studies such as randomized controlled trials. Most of the articles also had various limitations. For example, some of the studies had an insufficient sample which might have led to biased results.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the literature conducted, various gaps were identified that warrant future research. For example, the studies were single sight hence limiting generalizability. As such, there is a need to conduct similar studies but multicenter studies, which will help improve generalizability. The culturally specific or culturally centered interventions should also be tested through studies using larger population sizes as most of the articles reviewed here have moderate to low populations hence lowering the credibility of the results obtained. The implications are that more research studies need to be carried out to help identify what should be modified in these interventions to improve their efficacy and to get reliable and non-biased results.

Conclusion

Diabetes is one of the most common conditions that negatively impact the patients’ health, therefore is a need to control and manage the condition. Central to such a step is the formulation of effective interventions that can effectively manage diabetes. Therefore, this paper has explored the literature review related to the project and the proposed PICOT question. In addition, a comparison of the sources and the recommendation of future research as identified from the gaps have been explored.

 

References

Flores-Luevano, S., Pacheco, M., Shokar, G. S., Dwivedi, A. K., &Shokar, N. K. (2020). Impact of a Culturally Tailored Diabetes Education and Empowerment Program in a Mexican American Population Along the US/Mexico Border: A Pragmatic Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, 12(8), 517–529. https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4273.

Goff, L. M., Moore, A. P., Harding, S., & Rivas, C. (2021).Development of Healthy Eating and Active Lifestyles for Diabetes, a culturally tailored diabetes self-management education and support programme for Black-British adults: A participatory research approach.Diabetic Medicine, 38(11), e14594. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.14594.

Huang, S. J., Galárraga, O., Smith, K. A., Fuimaono, S., &McGarvey, S. T. (2019).Cost-effectiveness analysis of a cluster-randomized, culturally tailored, community health worker home-visiting diabetes intervention versus standard care in American Samoa.Human Resources for Health, 17(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-019-0356-6.

Islam, N. S., Wyatt, L. C., Taher, M. D., Riley, L., Tandon, S. D., Tanner, M., Mukherji, B. R., & Trinh-Shevrin, C. (2018). A Culturally Tailored Community Health Worker Intervention Leads to Improvement in Patient-Centered Outcomes for Immigrant Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. Clinical Diabetes, 36(2), 100–111. https://doi.org/10.2337/cd17-0068.

Li-Geng, T., Kilham, J., & McLeod, K. M. (2020). Cultural Influences on Dietary Self-Management of Type 2 Diabetes in East Asian Americans: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review. Health Equity. https://doi.org/10.1089/heq.2019.0087.

Moore, A. P., Rivas, C. A., Stanton-Fay, S., Harding, S., & Goff, L. M. (2019). Designing the Healthy Eating and Active Lifestyles for Diabetes (HEAL-D) self-management and support programme for UK African and Caribbean communities: A culturally tailored, complex intervention under-pinned by behaviour change theory.BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7411-z.

Soyoye, D. O., Abiodun, O. O., Ikem, R. T., Kolawole, B. A., & Akintomide, A. O. (2021). Diabetes and peripheral artery disease: A review. World Journal of Diabetes, 12(6), 827. https://dx.doi.org/10.4239%2Fwjd.v12.i6.827

Wadi, N. M., Asantewa-Ampaduh, S., Rivas, C., & Goff, L. M. (2021). Culturally tailored lifestyle interventions for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes in adults of Black African ancestry: A systematic review of tailoring methods and their effectiveness. Public Health Nutrition, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021003682.

Yorke, E., &Atiase, Y. (2018).Impact of structured education on glucose control and hypoglycaemia in Type-2 diabetes: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Ghana Medical Journal, 52(1), 41–60.

 

The purpose of this assignment is to write a review of the research articles you evaluated in your Topic 5 “Evidence-Based Practice Project: Evaluation of Literature” assignment. If you have been directed by your instructor to select different articles in order to meet the requirements for a literature review or to better support your evidence-based practice project proposal, complete this step prior to writing your review.

A literature review provides a concise comparison of the literature for the reader and explains how the research demonstrates support for your PICOT. You will use the literature review in this assignment in NUR-590, during which you will write a final paper detailing your evidence-based practice project proposal.

In a paper of 1,250-1,500, select eight of the ten articles you evaluated that demonstrate clear support for your evidence-based practice and complete the following for each article:

Introduction – Describe the clinical issue or problem you are addressing. Present your PICOT statement.
Search methods – Describe your search strategy and the criteria that you used in choosing and searching for your articles.
Synthesis of the literature – For each article, write a paragraph discussing the main components (subjects, methods, key findings) and provide rationale for how the article supports your PICOT.
Comparison of articles – Compare the articles (similarities and differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, controversies).
Suggestions for future research: Based on your analysis of the literature, discuss identified gaps and which areas require further research.
Conclusion – Provide a summary statement of what you found in the literature.
Complete the “APA Writing Checklist” to ensure that your paper adheres to APA style and formatting criteria and general guidelines for academic writing. Include the completed checklist as an appendix at the end of your paper.
Refer to the “Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal – Assignment Overview” document for an overview of the evidence-based practice project proposal assignments.

You are required to cite eight peer-reviewed 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. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

MBA-MSN; MSN-Nursing Education; MSN Acute Care Nurse Practitioner-Adult-Gerontology; MSN Family Nurse Practitioner; MSN-Health Informatics; MSN-Health Care Quality and Patient Safety; MSN-Leadership in Health Care Systems; MSN-Public Health Nursing

3.2: Analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Benchmark -Evidence-Based Practice Project: Literature Review – Rubric

Collapse All Benchmark -Evidence-Based Practice Project: Literature Review – Rubric

Collapse All

Introduction

8.75 points

Criteria Description

Introduction

5. Excellent

8.75 points

The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are thoroughly described.

4. Good

8.05 points

The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are adequately described.

3. Satisfactory

7.7 points

The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are presented. Some aspects are vague. There are minor inaccuracies.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

7 points

The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are incomplete or incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The clinical issue or problem and PICOT statement are omitted.

Search Methods

17.5 points

Criteria Description

Search Methods

5. Excellent

17.5 points

The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles is thoroughly described.

4. Good

16.1 points

The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are described. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory

15.4 points

The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are summarized. More information is needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

14 points

The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are only partially described.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The search strategy and criteria used in choosing and searching for articles are omitted.

Synthesis of Literature

17.5 points

Criteria Description

Synthesis of Literature

5. Excellent

17.5 points

A well-developed paragraph for each article is presented. The main components (subjects, methods, key findings) are thoroughly discussed, and substantial rationale for how each article supports the PICOT is clearly provided.

4. Good

16.1 points

A paragraph for each article is presented. The main components (subjects, methods, key findings) are adequately discussed, and rationale for how each article supports the PICOT is provided. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory

15.4 points

A summary for each article is presented. The main components (subjects, methods, key findings) are generally discussed. General rationale for how each article supports the PICOT is provided. More information is needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

14 points

All articles are presented, but the synthesis of literature is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

A paragraph for one or more article is missing.

Comparison of Articles

17.5 points

Criteria Description

Comparison of Articles

5. Excellent

17.5 points

A detailed comparison of the similarities, differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles is thoroughly presented.

4. Good

16.1 points

A comparison of the similarities, differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles is adequately presented. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory

15.4 points

A general comparison of the similarities, differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, and controversies among the articles is presented. Some aspects are unclear. More information is needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

14 points

All articles are presented, but the comparison is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

One or more article is missing in the comparison.

Suggestions for Future Research

17.5 points

Criteria Description

Suggestions for Future Research

5. Excellent

17.5 points

Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are thoroughly discussed and clearly based on the analysis of the literature. The narrative is insightful and demonstrates an understanding of research analysis necessary for future study.

4. Good

16.1 points

Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are adequately discussed. The narrative is based on the analysis of the literature. Some detail is needed for clarity or accuracy.

3. Satisfactory

15.4 points

Some identified gaps and areas requiring further research are generally discussed. The narrative is generally based on the analysis of the literature. More information is needed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

14 points

Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are only partially presented.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Identified gaps and areas requiring further research are omitted.

Conclusion

8.75 points

Criteria Description

Conclusion

5. Excellent

8.75 points

The conclusion is well-developed and presents a clear and accurate summary statement of what was found in the literature.

4. Good

8.05 points

The conclusion presents an adequate summary statement of what was found in the literature.

3. Satisfactory

7.7 points

The conclusion presents a vague summary statement of was found in the literature. There are inaccuracies.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

7 points

A conclusion is presented but fails to present a summary statement of what was found in the literature.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The conclusion is omitted.

Ability to Analyze (B)

17.5 points

Criteria Description

Ability to Analyze (C3.2)

5. Excellent

17.5 points

The literature review presented demonstrates a strong ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

4. Good

16.1 points

The literature review presented demonstrates an adequate ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

3. Satisfactory

15.4 points

The literature review presented demonstrates a general ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

14 points

The literature review presented does not consistently demonstrate an ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The literature review presented does not demonstrate an ability to analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

Appendix – I WILL ADD THIS MYSELF

8.75 points

Criteria Description

Appendix

5. Excellent

8.75 points

The APA Writing Checklist is attached in the appendix. It is clearly evident by the quality of the paper that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development.

4. Good

8.05 points

The APA Writing Checklist is attached in the appendix. It is apparent that the APA Writing Checklist was used in development of the paper.

3. Satisfactory

7.7 points

The APA Writing Checklist is attached and in the appendix. The APA Writing Checklist was generally used in development of the paper, but some aspects are inconsistent with the paper format or quality.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

7 points

The APA Writing Checklist is attached, but an appendix has not been created. The paper does not reflect the use of the APA Writing Checklist during development

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The appendix and required resources are omitted.

Required Sources

8.75 points

Criteria Description

Required Sources

5. Excellent

8.75 points

Number of required resources is met. Sources are current and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

4. Good

8.05 points

Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

3. Satisfactory

7.7 points

Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

7 points

Number of required sources is only partially met.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not included.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Thesis Development and Purpose

12.25 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent

12.25 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good

11.27 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory

10.78 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

9.8 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction

14 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent

14 points

Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good

12.88 points

Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory

12.32 points

Argument is orderly but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

11.2 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Mechanics of Writing

8.75 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Excellent

8.75 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good

8.05 points

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.

3. Satisfactory

7.7 points

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.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

7 points

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

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

Paper Format

8.75 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent

8.75 points

All format elements are correct.

4. Good

8.05 points

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory

7.7 points

Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

7 points

Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources

8.75 points

Criteria Description

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Excellent

8.75 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good

8.05 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. Satisfactory

7.7 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

7 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.