NURS 6052 Week 4 Discussion: Searching Databases Walden University

NURS 6052 Week 4 Discussion: Searching Databases Walden University

NURS 6052 Week 4 Discussion: Searching Databases Walden University

Discussion: Searching Databases
When you decide to purchase a new car, you first decide what is important to you. If mileage and dependability are the important factors, you will search for data focused more on these factors and less on color options and sound systems.
The same holds true when searching for research evidence to guide your clinical inquiry and professional decisions. Developing a formula for an answerable, researchable question that addresses your need will make the search process much more effective. One such formula is the PICO(T) format.
In this Discussion, you will transform a clinical inquiry into a searchable question in PICO(T) format, so you can search the electronic databases more effectively and efficiently. You will share this PICO(T) question and examine strategies you might use to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 6052 Week 4 Discussion: Searching Databases Walden University 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

To Prepare:
• Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
• Review the materials offering guidance on using databases, performing keyword searches, and developing PICO(T) questions provided in the Resources.
• Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least two different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
• Review the Resources for guidance and develop a PICO(T) question of interest to you for further study. It is suggested that an Intervention-type PICOT question be developed as these seem to work best for this course.
*Library tip:
Walden Library recommends starting your search broadly with one concept or search word and adding more elements one at a time. Depending on your topic, the evidence will not necessarily address all the aspects of your PICO(T) question in one article. Select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available, even if that means assembling evidence from multiple articles.
• Nursing Research Page – databases and resources specifically for Nursing
• Evidence-Based Practice guide: Evidence Types
• Nursing and Health research videos, including a 15-minute introduction
• Get Help page, including Ask a Librarian service
Quick Answers:
• How do I find an article that reports on research that uses a specific methodology?
• How do I find original or primary research that analyzes empirical data?
• What is the Find at Walden button?

Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
• Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
• Chapter 3, “Finding Relevant Evidence to Answer Clinical Questions” (pp. 55–92)

Davies, K. S. (2011). Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of the frameworks for LIS professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6(2), 75–80.

Library of Congress. (n.d.). Search/browse help – Boolean operators and nesting. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/htdocs/help/searchBoolean.html

Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Asking the clinical question: A key step in evidence-based practice. American Journal of Nursing, 110(3), 58–61.

Melnyk, B. M., Fineout-Overholt, E., Stillwell, S. B., & Williamson, K. M. (2009). Evidence-based practice: Step by step: Igniting a spirit of inquiry. American Journal of Nursing, 109(11), 49–52. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000363354.53883.58

Stillwell, S.B., Fineout-Overhold, E., Melnyk, B.M., & Williamson, K.M. (2010). Evidence-based practice step-by-step: Searching for evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41-47.

Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.-c). Evidence-based practice research: CINAHL search help. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/cinahlsearchhelp

Walden University Library. (n.d.-d). Evidence-based practice research: Joanna Briggs Institute search help. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/jbisearchhelp

Walden University Library. (n.d.-e). Evidence-based practice research: MEDLINE search help. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/medlinesearchhelp

Walden University Library. (n.d.-f). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Boolean terms. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/boolean

Walden University Library. (n.d.-g). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Introduction to keyword searching. Retrieved September 19, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/searching-basics

Walden University Library. (n.d.-h). Quick Answers: How do I find a systematic review article related to health, medicine, or nursing? Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicanswers.waldenu.edu/faq/72670

Walden University Library. (n.d.-i). Systematic review. Retrieved January 22, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/types#s-lg-box-1520654

Rubric
Main Posting–
Excellent 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Good 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Fair 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or 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.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.
Poor 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

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 sources.

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 Post: Timeliness–
Excellent 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response–
Excellent 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Good 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are 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.
Fair 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Poor 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Second Response–
Excellent 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
Good 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are 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.
Fair 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
Poor 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Participation–
Excellent 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Good 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Fair 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Poor 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

A Sample Of This Assignment Written By One Of Our Top-rated Writers

Discussion Post

After a patient has been diagnosed with breast cancer, various factors change that need to be intervened. For instance, women who have undergone a mastectomy may develop low self-esteem since they will have only one breast leading to mental health issues like depression and anxiety (Sukartini & Sari, 2021). Therefore my PICO question is, “For patients with breast cancer, is mastectomy the most efficient intervention compared to radiation therapy to control the spread of cancerous breast cells?” In that case, the Population stands for breast cancer patients, Intervention is mastectomy, Comparison is radiation therapy, and Outcome is the spread of cancerous cells control.

The search database that I engaged in were PubMed Center and Google Scholar. The keyword I engaged in the research was breast cancer management to search for articles within the last five years, that is, 2018 to 2022, which were 144630 results and 188,000 results, respectively. However, after involving the “mastectomy surgical and breast cancer” keyword as my Boolean operators, the results narrowed to 15811 and 17,200, respectively. The reason for using different search term strategies was to ensure that I acquired more specific articles for my research.

As I continue researching my topic, I aim to enhance my research effectiveness and rigour. Therefore, I will refine my search limiters to ensure I get up-to-date information to help me address my PICO question (Walden University Library, n.d.-e). I will also need to increase my key terms to help me get more specific articles on my research question. That will help me manage to sample the most appropriate articles that will be essential for my research (Walden University Library, n.d.-f). In conclusion, how one engages their search strategies determines the kind of articles one gets.

References

Sukartini, T., & Sari, Y. I. P. (2021). Women with breast cancer living with one breast after a mastectomy. Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery, 12(2), 366-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.15452/cejnm.2021.12.0012

Walden University Library. (n.d.-e). Evidence-based practice research: MEDLINE search help. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/healthevidence/medlinesearchhelp

Walden University Library. (n.d.-f). Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Boolean terms. http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/boolean