Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Critical Appraisal of Research Assignment
Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Critical Appraisal of Research Assignment
Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Critical Appraisal of Research
Realtors rely on detailed property appraisals—conducted using appraisal tools—to assign market values to houses and other properties. These values are then presented to buyers and sellers to set prices and initiate offers.
Research appraisal is not that different. The critical appraisal process utilizes formal appraisal tools to assess the results of research to determine value to the context at hand. Evidence-based practitioners often present these findings to make the case for specific courses of action.
Struggling to meet your deadline ?
Get assistance on
Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Critical Appraisal of Research Assignment
done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Critical Appraisal of Research Assignment 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
In this Assignment, you will use an appraisal tool to conduct a critical appraisal of published research. You will then present the results of your efforts.
To Prepare:
- Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and the four systematic reviews (or other filtered high- level evidence) you selected in Module 3.
- Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you selected in Module 2 and analyzed in Module 3.
- Review and download the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template provided in the Resources.
The Assignment (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 3A: Critical Appraisal of Research
Conduct a critical appraisal of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected by completing the Evaluation Table within the Critical Appraisal Tool Worksheet Template. Choose a total of four peer- reviewed articles that you selected related to your clinical topic of interest in Module 2 and Module 3.
Note: You can choose any combination of articles from Modules 2 and 3 for your Critical Appraisal. For example, you may choose two unfiltered research articles from Module 2 and two filtered research articles (systematic reviews) from Module 3 or one article from Module 2 and three articles from Module 3. You can choose any combination of articles from the prior Module Assignments as long as both modules and types of studies are represented.
Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research
Based on your appraisal, in a 1-2-page critical appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research.
RUBRIC:
| 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
The critical appraisal accurately and clearly provides a detailed evaluation table. The responses provide a detailed, specific, and accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
The critical appraisal accurately provides an evaluation table. The responses provide an accurate evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected with some specificity. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate or vague. The responses provide an inaccurate or vague evaluation of each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
The critical appraisal provides an evaluation table that is inaccurate and vague or is missing. |
||
| Part 3B: Evidence-Based Best Practices Based on your appraisal, suggest a best practice that emerges from the research you reviewed. Briefly explain the best practice, justifying your proposal with APA citations of the research. | 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
The responses accurately and clearly suggest a detailed best practice that is fully aligned to the research reviewed. The responses accurately and clearly explain in detail the best practice, with sufficient justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response fully integrates at least two outside resources and two or three course-specific resources that fully support the responses provided. Accurate, complete, and full APA citations are provided for the research reviewed. |
28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
The responses accurately suggest a best practice that is adequately aligned to the research reviewed. The responses accurately explain the best practice, with adequately justification of why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource reviewed on the best practice explained. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources that may support the responses provided. Accurate and complete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed. |
25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
The responses inaccurately or vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed. The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate or vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field. The responses provide a vague or inaccurate synthesis of outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided. Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed. |
0 (0%) – 24 (24%)
The responses inaccurately and vaguely suggest a best practice that may be aligned to the research reviewed or are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely explain the best practice, with inaccurate and vague justification for why this represents a best practice in the field, or are missing. A vague and inaccurate synthesis of no outside resources reviewed on the best practice explained is provided or is missing. The response fails to integrate any resources to support the responses provided. Inaccurate and incomplete APA citations are provided for the research reviewed or is missing. |
|
| Written 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 (5%) – 5 (5%)
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 (4%) – 4 (4%)
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 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
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. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
|
| Written Expression and Formatting—The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) APA format errors. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) APA format errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) APA format errors. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||
|
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Critical Appraisal of Research Assignment HERE
Evaluation Table
Use this document to complete the evaluation table requirement of the Module 4 Assessment, Evidence-Based Project, Part 4A: Critical Appraisal of Research
| Full APA formatted citation of selected article. | Article #1 | Article #2 | Article #3 | Article #4 |
| Timäus, C., Meiser, M., Bandelow, B., Engel, K.R., Paschke, A.M., Wiltfang, J., & Wedekind, D. (2019). Pharmacotherapy of borderline personality disorder: What has changed over two decades? A retrospective evaluation of clinical practice. BMC Psychiatry, 19(393), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2377-z
|
Winterling, J, S., Völlm, B., & Lieb, K. (2020). Is pharmacotherapy useful for treating personality disorders? Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy; 22 (4): 393-395. | Silva, S., Donato, H., & Madeira, N. (2018). The outcomes of psychotherapy in mixed features personality disorders: A systematic review. Arch Clin Psychiatry. 2018;45(6):161-6. DOI: 10.1590/0101-60830000000180. | Caspar, F. (2018). Studying Effects and Process in Psychotherapy for Personality Disorders. Psychopathology. Review. Psychopathology; 51:141–148. https://doi.org/10.1159/000487895. | |
| Evidence Level *
(I, II, or III)
|
Level I evidence | Level I evidence | Level I evidence | Level I evidence |
| Conceptual Framework
Describe the theoretical basis for the study (If there is not one mentioned in the article, say that here).**
|
The study does not have any theoretical basis.
|
The study does not have any theoretical basis.
|
The theoretical basis for this review involves analyzing the possible motives behind hostile patient behavior. | |
| Design/Method
Describe the design and how the study was carried out (In detail, including inclusion/exclusion criteria). |
The researchers used retrospective evaluation in this study. The inclusion criteria, included charts of 87 patients. The patients were diagnosed with borderline personality. They must have been treated for this disorder as inpatients in the University Medical Center of Goettingen, Germany. Finally, the treatment must have occurred between 2008 and 2012.
The exclusion criteria were BPD not being the main diagnosis and patients being were exclusively treated in an outpatient. |
The study was conducted through a systematic review of randomized clinical trials about the use of pharmacotherapy in treating personality disorders. | The study was conducted through a systematic review of randomized clinical trials according to the PRISMA guidelines.
The study included adults aged between 18 and 65 years with a primary diagnosis of mixed features personality disorders. |
The study was conducted by reviewing Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) about the use of psychotherapy in treating personality disorders. |
| Sample/Setting
The number and characteristics of patients, attrition rate, etc. |
The was sample was charts of 87 patients who were diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and were treated for this condition as inpatients in the University Medical Center of Goettingen, Germany, between 2008 and 2012.
|
The review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the use of pharmacotherapy in treating personality disorders. | The review included seven articles, which were assessing the outcomes of psychotherapeutic interventions in adults with primary diagnosis of mixed features PDs. | The sample for this study was RCTs about the use of psychotherapy in treating personality disorders. |
| Major Variables Studied
List and define dependent and independent variables |
Pharmacotherapy is the independent variable while the treatment of borderline personality disorder is the dependent variable for the study. | Independent variable was pharmacotherapy while the dependent variable was the treatment of personality disorder. | The outcomes of psychotherapy were the dependent variables while features personality disorders are the independent variables for the study. | Psychotherapy for personality disorders was the independent variable while effects and process were dependent variables for this review. |
| Measurement
Identify primary statistics used to answer clinical questions (You need to list the actual tests done). |
The clinical question was answered by methods used to treat patients diagnosed borderline personality disorder. | The clinical question was answered by reviewing RCT about the use of various psychotics in treating personality disorders. | The clinical question was answered by reviewing RCT about outcomes of psychotherapeutic interventions. | The clinical question was answered by reviewing RCT about the use of psychotherapy in treating personality disorders. |
| Data Analysis Statistical or
Qualitative findings
(You need to enter the actual numbers determined by the statistical tests or qualitative data). |
The statistical findings indicate that 94% of all BOD inpatients from to 2008–2012 were treated with at least one psychotropic drug. However, use of lower-potency antipsychotics in treating BPD has declined significantly over the same period from 83% to 42.5% in 1996–2004 and 2008–2012, respectively. | Qualitative findings indicate that various psychotics are used in treating personality disorders. | Qualitative findings indicate that psychotherapeutic interventions decreased symptom severity. | The qualitative findings indicate that individualized psychotherapy procedures are effective in treating personality disorders. |
| Findings and Recommendations
General findings and recommendations of the research |
The research indicates that pharmacotherapy is highly prevalent in treating BPD.
Therefore, clinicians should incorporate pharmacotherapy in the treatment of BPD. |
The findings of the review indicate that pharmacotherapy cannot be considered as a treatment for PDs.
Therefore, psychiatrists should not use pharmacotherapy in treating this disorder. |
psychotherapeutic interventions are effective in decreasing symptom severity.
Therefore, healthcare professionals should incorporate psychotherapeutic interventions in the treatment of PDs. |
The findings of the review indicate that individualized psychotherapy procedures are effective in treating personality disorders.
Therefore, clinicians should incorporate individualized psychotherapy procedures in the treatment of personality disorders. |
| Appraisal and Study Quality
Describe the general worth of this research to practice.
What are the strengths and limitations of study?
What are the risks associated with implementation of the suggested practices or processes detailed in the research?
What is the feasibility of use in your practice? |
The research is significant to the practice since it suggests a treatment option for BPD.
The strength is that the article discussed all forms of psychotic drugs that are being used in treating BPD and their rate of usage. The limitation is lack of information about efficacy of the psychotropic drugs.
This implementation of pharmacotherapy is associated with the risk of increasing the cost of treating this condition. The feasibility of this article is that pharmacotherapy will be used in treating BPD in our practice due to its effectiveness in reducing patients’ symptoms.
|
This review is useful to the practice since it indicates the impact of pharmacotherapy in treating PDs.
The strength of this study is providing credible information since evidence was gathered through review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the use of pharmacotherapy in treating personality disorders.
The limitation of this study is failure of the review to provide better-suited specialist psychotherapy for treating PDs. This implementation of pharmacotherapy is associated with the risk of relapse of PD symptoms. The feasibility of this article is that pharmacotherapy will not be used in treating personality disorders in the clinical practice. |
This review is important to the practice since it reveals the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions in the treatment of PDs.
The strength of this article involves availing reliable evidence due to use of RCTs as sources of information during the review. The limitation involves too small study sample (7) making it difficult to generalize the study findings. |
This review is important to the practice since it reveals the efficacy of individualized psychotherapy procedures in the treatment of personality disorders.
The strength of the review is the use of several RCTs, thereby providing credible evidence. The limitation involves lack of evidence about particular symptoms of personality disorder managed by this intervention. The risk associated with the implementation of individualized psychotherapy procedures is lack of specialists in the field. The feasibility indicates that this approach should be implemented in the practice due to its efficacy in managing PDs’ symptoms. |
|
Key findings
|
Findings indicate that pharmacotherapy is effective in treating BPD. | Pharmacotherapy is ineffective in treating personality disorders. | Psychotherapeutic interventions are effective in reducing symptom severity. | Individualized psychotherapy procedures are effective in the treatment of personality disorders. |
|
Outcomes
|
Decrease in presented PDs’ symptoms. | Relapse of PD symptoms. | Significant decrease in the severity of PDs’ symptoms. | Decline in presented PDs’ symptoms. |
| General Notes/Comments | Pharmacotherapy is effective in treating BPD.
|
Pharmacotherapy is ineffective in treating personality disorders. | Psychotherapeutic interventions are effective in decreasing symptom severity. | Individualized psychotherapy procedures are effective in the treatment of personality disorders. |
Part 3B: Critical Appraisal of Research
The prevalence of personality disorders has increased significantly globally. Consequently, these disorders are considered as a mental health priority internationally. However, the prevalence rates of personality disorders depend on various factors, including age, urbanicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. For instance, the rate of these disorders is relatively lower in lower-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries (HICs) (Winsper, C et al., 2019). Although most cases of personality disorders in developed countries are not documented, their prevalence have increased substantially. These personality disorders are attributed to morbidity, premature mortality, and huge personal and social costs. Effective treatment should be used to treat these disorders, thereby reducing morbidity, premature mortality, and huge personal and social costs associated with them. Healthcare professionals mainly use pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy interventions in treating these conditions. However, psychotherapy interventions are more effective in treating personality disorders than pharmacotherapy treatment. According to Silva et al. (2018), psychotherapeutic interventions are effective in decreasing the severity of symptoms of personality disorders. Additionally, a study by Caspar (2018) indicates that individualized psychotherapy procedures are effective in treating personality disorders. On the other hand, Winterling et al. (2020) reveals inefficacy of pharmacotherapy in treating personality disorders. Therefore, healthcare organizations should increase the number of psychotherapies specialists to enhance the treatment of personality disorders.
References
Caspar, F. (2018). Studying Effects and Process in Psychotherapy for Personality Disorders. Psychopathology. Review. Psychopathology; 51:141–148. https://doi.org/10.1159/000487895.
Silva, S., Donato, H., & Madeira, N. (2018). The outcomes of psychotherapy in mixed features personality disorders: A systematic review. Arch Clin Psychiatry. 2018;45(6):161-6. DOI: 10.1590/0101-60830000000180.
Winterling, J, S., Völlm, B., & Lieb, K. (2020). Is pharmacotherapy useful for treating personality disorders? Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy; 22 (4): 393-395.
Winsper, C et al. (2019). The prevalence of personality disorders in the community: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Struggling to meet your deadline ?
Get assistance on
Evidence-Based Project, Part 3: Critical Appraisal of Research Assignment
done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!