Recent Question/Assignment

Assessment 5 –- Written Assignment of 2500 words due in week 9 (50%) – Tuesday 10 th
September 2019 12MN
Assignment topic
The aim of critical appraisal is to ensure the clinical research articles are reliable, valid and applicable before it is applied to a patient.
In this assignment, you are required to critically appraise a systematic review paper using the criteria given in the rubric. You must select one systematic review paper provided below and indicate the title of the systematic review paper on the title page of your assignment.
Systematic review papers (double-click PDF)
A systematic review of experience of adva
Article 1: A systematic review of experiences of advanced practice nursing in general practice
A Systematic Review
on the Effectiveness o
Article 2: A Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of Interventions to Improve Hand Hygiene
Compliance of Nurses in
the Hospital Setting
Effectiveness of
Pressure Ulcer Preven
Article 3: Effectiveness of Pressure Ulcer Prevention Strategies for Adult Patients in Intensive Care Units:
A Systematic Review
Nursing workload
and occurrence of adv
Article 4: Nursing workload and occurrence of adverse events in intensive care: a systematic review
preventing falls
among older people w
Article 5: Preventing falls among older people with mental health problems: a systematic review Assessment criteria
• Select a minimum of 7 literature/research articles that provide the strongest evidence for your topic. Your articles must be = 7 years old.
• Select one systematic review paper provided above.
• Your assignment must have an introduction, body and a conclusion.
• USE APA FORMAT. APA website. Information cited from unreliable websites, pamphlets or magazines is not acceptable for this paper.
• The assignment will be marked according to the rubric/marking guide below.
• Refer to hyperlink: “ C HEC KLI ST FOR ASSIG N MENT PRESEN TAT I ON ”
• See hyperlink: Sample of the title page
Content
Mark Allocated %
Introduction
• Students provide a clear and adequate description and discussion of the topic of interest in their professional practice.
5
Review problem/focus/ question
• Population studied
• Interventions given
• Outcomes considered
5
Literature search/ Review
• Appropriateness of papers relevant to review question
• Appropriate study design
• Usage of appropriate database and outside resources
5
Quality of the review
• Did the authors assess the quality/rigour of the including/excluding studies?
• Data synthesis
• Are the results of the review combined?
• Were the results of the individual studies displayed?
• Were the similarities among the individual studies included?
• Were similar results from different studies considered?
• Were variations in results discussed with reasoning?
5
Results
• What are the overall results/bottom line (e.g. numerical) of the review?
• Precision of the results (confidence intervals)
• How are the results expressed (NNT, odd ratios etc.) 5
Discussion
• Is the result of the review applicable to the local population?
• Did the review focus on all the important outcomes?
• Advantages (benefits) and disadvantages (harms, costs etc.) of the results of the review
• Recommendations for future research
10
Presentation
• Headings in the body of the paper are clearly labelled and information under each heading relates to the heading
• Logical and sequential arrangement of explanations and descriptions
• Conclusion provides a summary of the paper; no new information is provided.
10
APA Format and References
• Grammar, spelling and punctuation
• Paper meets APA guidelines regarding margins, font, references, etc. All content follows current APA writing guidelines. 5
Total Marks
50
Criteria
Excellent = HD
Good=D
Fair=C
Poor=P
Fail=N Marks
Obtained
Introduction Student demonstrates evidence of exceptional understanding and clear and adequate
description of the topic
Student provides a very clear concise and precise description of the content that will be discussed in the content of this essay. Student demonstrates an appropriate amount of evidence of relevant knowledge and understanding of the topic
Student provides a clear description of the content that will be discussed in the content of this essay.
Student adequately identifies, describes and discusses the topic
Student provides an adequate description of the content that will be discussed in the content of this essay.
Student provides a minimal description, discussion and understanding of the topic
Student did not explain what is to be discussed in the content of this essay.
Student fails to identify the topic and show no understanding of what is to be discussed in the paper.
Marks / 5 5 4 3 2.5 2-0
Review problem/focus/ question
a. Population studied
b. Interventions given
c. Outcomes considered Review problem/focus/ question was clearly identified. All the three elements (a, b, c) were recognized and explained in detail. Review problem/focus/ question was clearly identified. All the three elements (a, b, c) were recognized and briefly explained. Review problem/focus/ question was identified. i.e. 2 out of 3 elements were recognized and mentioned but not explained. Review problem/focus/ question was not clearly identified. i.e.1
out of 3 was recognized and mentioned but not explained. Totally off-track, does not address the elements.
Marks / 5 5 4 3 2.5 2-0
Literature search/ Review
a. Appropriateness of papers relevant to review question
b. Appropriate study design
c. Usage of appropriate database and outside resources Elements were analyzed
extensively and described in detail answering all 3 questions. Elements were sufficiently analyzed and clearly described answering all 3 questions. Elements were moderately analyzed and briefly described answering 2 out of 3 questions Very few of the elements were analyzed and described. Questions were not answered appropriately. None of the elements was analyzed or described.
Marks /5 5 4 3 2.5 2-0
Rubric for Assessment 5- 50% (2500 words). Due date: Week 9 Tuesday 10th September 2019 12MN
Quality of the review
a. Did the authors assess the quality/rigour of the including/excluding studies?
Data synthesis
a. Are the results of the review combined?
b. Were the results of the individual studies displayed?
c. Were the similarities among the individual studies included?
d. Were similar results from different studies considered?
e. Were variations in results discussed with reasoning?
Element (a) was analyzed extensively to assess the quality of the review.
Data synthesis of the review was thoroughly analyzed and described
answering all 5 questions listed.
Element (a) was analyzed sufficiently to assess the quality of the review.
Data synthesis of the review was sufficiently analyzed and described answering all most i.e. 4 out of 5 of the questions listed.
Element (a) was analyzed moderately to assess the quality of the review.
Data synthesis of the review was moderately analyzed and described answering few i.e. 3 out of 5 of the questions listed.
Element (a) was not analyzed clearly to assess the quality of the review.
Data synthesis of the review was briefly/ superficially analyzed and described
answering few i.e. 1 or 2 out of 5 of the questions listed.
The quality of the review was not assessed.
Data synthesis of the review was NOT analyzed and described.
Marks / 5 5 4 3 2.5 2-0

Results
a.What are the overall results/bottom line (e.g. numerical) of the review?
b.Precision of the results
(confidence intervals)
c.How are the results expressed? (NNT, odd ratios etc.)
The results of the review were elaborately analyzed and described
answering all 3 questions.
The results of the review were sufficiently analyzed and described answering all the 3 questions.
The results of the review were moderately analyzed and described answering most of the i.e. 2 out of 3 questions.
The results of the review were not clearly analyzed, and questions were not
answered appropriately.
The elements were not
addressed
Marks / 5 5 4 3 2.5 2-0

Discussion/ Result analysis
a. Is the result of the review applicable to the local population?
b. Did the review focus on all the important outcomes?
c. Advantages (benefits) and disadvantages (harms, costs etc.) of the results of the review
d. Recommendations for future research The results of the review were discussed thoroughly including all four elements listed. The results of the review were discussed moderately including all four elements listed The results of the review were discussed adequately including all four or 3 out of
4 of the elements listed The results of the review were discussed briefly including very few i.e. 1 /2 out of 4 of the elements listed. The elements listed were not addressed
Marks /10 10 9-8 7-6 5 4-0
Presentation/conclusion Logical and sequential arrangement of descriptions and discussion as per critical appraisal specified above.
Conclusion provides a very clear summary of the presentation. No new information is provided. Good flow of ideas. Mostly logical and sequential arrangement of descriptions and discussion as per critical appraisal specified above.
Conclusion provides a clear summary of the presentation. No new information is provided. Minor issues with flow of ideas. Logical and
sequential arrangement of descriptions and discussion as per critical appraisal specified above.
Conclusion provides an adequate summary of the presentation. No new information is provided. Lack of clarity with ideas and inconsistent structure with the arrangement of descriptions and discussion. Few of the elements were addressed on the critical appraisal specified above.
Conclusion provides a poor summary of the presentation. No new
information is provided. Incoherent structure. Ideas do not flow in a logical or sequential manner as per critical appraisal specified above. Poor planning of the paper.
Conclusion is not provided.
Marks / 10 10-9 8-7 6 5 4-0

APA Format and References Paper contains 1-2 errors in grammar, punctuation or spelling.
Paper meets APA guidelines regarding margins, font, references, etc. All content follows current APA writing guidelines. Paper contains less than 3 errors in grammar, punctuation or spelling.
Paper meets appropriate APA guidelines regarding margins, font, references, etc. Most content compliant with current APA writing guidelines. Paper contains less than 3 errors in grammar, punctuation or spelling.
Paper uses minimal APA guidelines regarding appropriate
margins, font, references, etc.
Minimal compliance with current APA writing guidelines. Paper contains 5 or more grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors
Paper attempts to use some APA guidelines for appropriate margins, font, references, etc. Most of the content is not in compliance with current APA writing guidelines. Paper contains numerous grammatical, punctuation or spelling errors.
Paper does not use appropriate margins, font, references, etc. The content is not compliant with current APA writing guidelines.
Marks / 5 5 4 3 2.5 2-0
Late submission without authorisation
If applicable, marks reduced for a number of days assessment is overdue
- less Late submission
Total Marks Obtained
Sub-Total /50

Looking for answers ?


Recent Questions