NURS 8210 WEEK 11 DISCUSSION: USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
NURS 8210 WEEK 11 DISCUSSION: USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
WEEK 11 DISCUSSION: USING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS TO INFORM EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
Chronic pain affects millions of Americans. Diagnosing, treating, and understanding chronic pain creates many challenges for healthcare. Is the challenge on how to properly diagnose and manage a patient’s pain? Or is the challenge on whether or not to prescribe pain medications given the concerns with addiction as a result of the opioid epidemic?
Consider the questions posed above. How might the use of qualitative and quantitative methods serve to provide answers for researchers regarding the challenges associated with chronic pain? What can qualitative data provide that quantitative data cannot, and vice versa? How might a mixed methods approach fill in the gaps to provide a clearer understanding of the problem and potential solutions?
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
For this Discussion, reflect on an issue or problem in healthcare that may benefit from a mixed methods approach. Think about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods and designs, as well as how these two methods might work well together. Consider how a mixed methods approach supports evidence-based practice.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
WEEK 11: LEARNING RESOURCES
- Gray, J. R., & Grove, S. K. (2020). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (9th ed.). Elsevier.
- Chapter 14, “Mixed Methods Research” (pp. 386–409)
- Chapter 19, “Evidence Synthesis and Strategies for Implementing Evidence-Based Practice” (pp. 551–606)
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2015). Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews.Links to an external site. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/cer-methods-guide/overview/
- Dreyfoos, N. (2020). Evaluating the impact of a depression care management program.Links to an external site. https://scholarworks.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=dnp-projects
- 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., … & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsLinks to an external site.. Systematic Reviews, 10(89), 1–11. doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
- 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,Links to an external site. 70, 747–770. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
PreviousNext
TO PREPARE:
- Review the Learning Resources for this week and consider the differences between qualitative and quantitative research designs and methods.
- Consider an example of a topic or issue in nursing in which both qualitative and quantitative research approaches might be necessary,
- Reflect on how a mixed methods approach lends itself to evidence-based practice.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 11
Post an explanation of when it might be most useful to use both qualitative and quantitative approaches or mixed methods to support a research design. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain whether a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches are used in systematic reviews to support evidence-based practice. Be specific.
BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 11
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:
NURS_8201_Week11_Discussion_Rubric
NURS_8201_Week11_Discussion_Rubric
| Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current scholarly sources. |
| 44 to >39.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current scholarly sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current scholarly sources that are correctly cited and formatted. |
39 to >34.0 ptsGood 80%–89%
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three scholarly sources that are correctly cited and formatted. |
34 to >30.0 ptsFair 70%–79%
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to 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. Supported by fewer than two scholarly sources that are correctly cited and formatted. |
30 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). 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 scholarly sources. |
|
44 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Writing |
| 6 to >5.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English. |
5 to >4.0 ptsGood 80%–89%
Written clearly and concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English. |
4 to >3.0 ptsFair 70%–79%
Written somewhat clearly and concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Edits are needed to follow standards for Standard Academic English. |
3 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Does not follow Standard Academic English for most of the post. |
|
6 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Timely and full participation |
| 10 to >8.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts main Discussion by due date. |
8 to >7.0 ptsGood 80%–89%
Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts main Discussion by due date. |
7 to >6.0 ptsFair 70%–79%
Posts main Discussion by due date. |
6 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%
Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post main Discussion by due date. |
|
10 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with scholarly sources. |
| 9 to >8.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. Uses scholarly sources to support ideas. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. |
8 to >7.0 ptsGood 80%–89%
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Uses scholarly sources to support ideas. Demonstrates a beginning synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. |
7 to >6.0 ptsFair 70%–79%
Response is on topic and may have some depth. Minimal or no scholarly sources provided. |
6 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. No sources. |
|
9 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Writing |
| 6 to >5.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more scholarly sources. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English. |
5 to >4.0 ptsGood 80%–89%
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Response is written in Academic English. |
4 to >3.0 ptsFair 70%–79%
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions is minimally addressed, if posed. Few or no scholarly sources are cited. |
3 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions is missing. No scholarly sources are cited. |
|
6 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Timely and full participation |
| 5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. … Posts by due date. |
4 to >3.0 ptsGood 80%–89%
Meets requirements for full participation. … Posts by due date. |
3 to >2.0 ptsFair 70%–79%
Posts by due date. |
2 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%
Does not meet requirements for full participation. … Does not post by due date. |
|
5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with scholarly sources. |
| 9 to >8.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. Uses scholarly sources to support ideas. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. |
8 to >7.0 ptsGood 80%–89%
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Uses scholarly sources to support ideas. Demonstrates a beginning synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. |
7 to >6.0 ptsFair 70%–79%
Response is on topic and may have some depth. Minimal or no scholarly sources provided. |
6 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. No sources. |
|
9 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Writing |
| 6 to >5.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more scholarly sources. Response is effectively written in Standard Academic English. |
5 to >4.0 ptsGood 80%–89%
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions is mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few at least two scholarly sources…. Response is written in Standard Academic English. |
4 to >3.0 ptsFair 70%–79%
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions is minimally addressed, if posed. Few or no scholarly sources are cited. |
3 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions is missing. No scholarly sources are cited. |
|
6 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Timely and full participation |
| 5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent 90%–100%
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
4 to >3.0 ptsGood 80%–89%
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
3 to >2.0 ptsFair 70%–79%
Posts by due date. |
2 to >0 ptsPoor 0%–69%
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
|
5 pts |
| Total Points: 100 |
- Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
- Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
- Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
- Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
- Suggest an alternative perspective based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
- Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.