This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTitle of article and source journal

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTitle of article and source journal Complete title of the article and the complete name of the journal it is from.

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCorrect Level of Evidence Uses the Level of Evidence Pyramid to identify the type of study demonstrated by the article.

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQualitative or Quantitative Does the research describe an experience (qualitative)? Does the research measure or compare different responses to an intervention or condition (quantitative)?

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRationale for choices Is there a clear statement of how the determination of the level of evidence and the type of research was arrived at?

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcomedoi / url A doi or a url are listed which allow the full text article to be retrieved.

 

This is the Instructions

 

 

 

This is the question that need to Answer!

 

Question is based on “ Does the life style modification can lower the heart failure diseases?”

 

ASSIGNMENT : Levels of Evidence

Assignment: Choose three (3) of the 5 articles you will use for your annotated bibliography.

For each article:

a. Identify the full title of the article and the name if the journal that it is from

b. Determine the Level of Evidence using the Evidence Pyramid

c. Choose whether the article is qualitative or quantitative

d. Provide a brief statement of how you came to those decisions

e. Copy the doi (digital object identifier) so the source can be verified. If no doi is available please include the url where the article is located. (This is not: retrieved from EBSCO host)

Each correct component will receive 1 point. This is an important pre-requisite to completing the annotated bibliography

 

 

These are the article that I found

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/circj/advpub/0/advpub_CJ-20-0058/_article/-char/ja/

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/lifestyle-changes-to-lower-heart-disease-risk-2019110218125#:~:text=The%20good%20news%20is%20that,disease%20risk%20by%20nearly%2050%25.

https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/heart-failure/features/manage-heart-failure-with-lifestyle?fbclid=IwAR2GUTvqIi97G9mc77sJ0aNoWtOcOUssdZmg1bJtEbB7rICdzTYHMJqJ_dU

 

Datebase search working sheet

1. Write your research topic as a sentence, phrase or question and identify the three main ideas that you’ll be researching.

 

Does the life style modification can lower the heart failure diseases?

 

 

 

 

2. Brainstorm additional search terms for these concepts and write them in the right-hand column on the table below. You will use some or all of these terms when you enter you search into the database. As you search, keep a lookout for more useful terms and subject headings.

 

	Possible Search Terms for Your Topic (synonyms or related terms)
Search Concept 1	Heart Failure
AND Search Concept 2	Life style modification
AND Search Concept 3	Risk of heart failure

 

 

3. Now select a database that you think will have information on your topic (CINAHL or Pubmed are probably good places to start):

 

Database name __CINAHL, EBSCO, Academic search complete__

 

 

 

Second question

Quantitative Study Trustworthiness Criteria

Publication Section	Content	Questions	Appraisal
1st or last page of publication	Authors’ names, credentials, affiliations and conflicts of interest	Are the authors’ credentials and educational background appropriate to conduct this type of study? Are the authors affiliated with an educational program, health institution or practice setting? Do the authors report a conflict of interest?	Strength Limitation Not Evident Not Applicable
1st or last page of the publication	Funding source	Does the funding source have a vested interest in a beneficial outcome of the study?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Introduction	Purpose	Is the intent of the study clearly stated? Are the variables being investigated identifiable? Are the outcomes of the study identifiable? Is the population under study identifiable?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Introduction	Hypotheses and research questions	Are the hypotheses in alignment with the intended purpose? Are the variables under study identifiable in the hypotheses (e.g. independent and dependent variables)? Is one hypothesis written for each dependent variable under study? Are the research questions in alignment with the intended purpose? Are the variables under study identifiable in the research questions? Is one question written for each variable under study?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Methods	Research design	Is the design selected in alignment with the purpose? Is the design appropriate to reach the stated outcome? Is a control or comparison group used when its use strengthens the validity of the outcome? Are the researchers blind to the assignment of participants (when it makes sense)? Are the participants blind to their assignment (when it makes sense)? Does the design limit the number of extraneous variables?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Methods	Sample	Did the authors describe the population that the sample is intended to represent? Was the sampling frame used appropriate for the purpose of the study? Was the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly described, and was it appropriate for the intended outcome? Was the assignment of participants to treatment and control/comparison groups random or nonrandom, and was the method appropriate? Was the sample size sufficient to include all applicable variability? Was a sampling calculation discussed?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Methods	Research protocol	Was the protocol for conducting the study described thoroughly and in enough detail? Was the protocol followed appropriate for the purpose? Did the study continue long enough to have valid outcomes? Was the protocol consistently administered to the participants in each group? Did the researchers take steps to control for extraneous variables? Was the protocol ethical and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB)?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Methods	Data collection	Were the data collection methods appropriate for the intended purpose of the study? Were the data collection procedures consistently applied to the participants? Was the validity and reliability of the data collection instrument established at a high enough level? Was the reliability of the data collectors established at a high enough level?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Results	Sample	Were important demographics of the intervention and control/comparison group similar and, if not, did it impact the results? Were treatment and control groups similar at the baseline measurement of the outcome variables and, if not, did this difference impact the results? How were eligible participants accounted for throughout the study? Was the discontinuance rate comparable between the treatment and control / comparison group?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Results	Data analysis	What did the power analysis indicate? Were data analyzed using an on-protocol or intention to treat analysis or both? If intention to treat analysis was used, what method was used to input missing data? Were the statistical analyses appropriate for the level of data ( nominal, ordinal, interval or ratio)? Were the statistical analyses appropriate to test the hypotheses and answer the research questions?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Results	Findings	Are findings presented relative to each hypothesis and research question? Are findings reported as statistically significant or not significant? When confidence levels are reported, are the upper and lower limits acceptable to implement a change to your practice? Do the findings have practical or clinical significance?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Discussion		Did the researchers thoroughly explain their interpretation of the findings? Were the explanations logical? Did the researchers compare their findings to the findings off previous studies and provide a rationale on why they differ? Did the researchers thoroughly identify and discuss the limitations? What are the implications for practice? What future research recommendations are made?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Conclusions		Are the conclusions in alignment with the intended purpose of the study? Do the conclusions logically follow from the findings and interpretation?	Strength Limitation NE NA

 

Qualitative Study Trustworthiness Criteria

Section	Content	Questions	Appraisal
1st page	Authors, credentials, conflict of interest	Are their credentials appropriate to conduct this type of study? Are they affiliated with an educational program, health institution or practice setting Do they report a conflict of interest?	Strength Limitation Not evident Not applicable
1st or last page	Funding source	Does the funding source have a vested interest in a beneficial outcome of the study?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Introduction	Purpose	Is the intent of the study clearly stated? Is the phenomenon being investigated identifiable? Is the population identifiable?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Introduction	Research Questions	Are the research questions inn alignment with the intended purpose? Is the phenomenon under study identifiable in a broad research question?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Methods	Qualitative Approach	Is the rationale for using a qualitative approach explained? Is the qualitative approach in alignment with the intended purpose (e.g. ethnography, biography, phenomenology, case study, grounded theory)?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Methods	Sample	Was a sampling method or multiple methods used to identify participants who participated in the study? How did the researchers attempt to gain variation within the sample? Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly described and were they appropriate for the purpose of the study?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Methods	Data collection protocol	Were data collection methods appropriate for the purpose of the study (e.g. interviews, focus groups, observations, document review)? Was the protocol for conducting the study described thoroughly and in enough detail? Were data collection procedures consistently applied to the participants of the study? Did the data collector have sufficient qualifications and training? Were data collected long enough to have saturation? Was the protocol ethical and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB)? What steps were taken to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants? What steps were taken to ensure credibility and objectivity during data collection?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Results	Sample	Were the participants’ characteristics described in enough detail to understand how they contributed to the data? Were the participants’ experiences with the phenomenon varied?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Results	Data analysis	What steps were taken to ensure that the interview or focus group data were transcribed verbatim? How were the data coded? How were categories and themes constructed? How were interrelationships established and a theory constructed (i.e. grounded theory approach)? What steps were taken to ensure credibility, dependability, and objectivity during data analysis?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Results	Findings	Are the themes or theory presented in an understandable manner? Are the findings supported by quotations from the participants to facilitate transferability? Are the findings presented relative to the intended purpose and research question?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Discussion		Did the researchers thoroughly explain their interpretation of the findings? Were the explanations logical? Did the researchers describe the contribution of their study to understanding the phenomenon? Did the researchers discuss how their findings are related to previous studies and theories in their own discipline and, when appropriate, other disciplines? Did the researchers thoroughly identify and discuss the limitations? What are the implications for practice? What future research recommendations are made?	Strength Limitation NE NA
Conclusions		Are the conclusions in alignment with the intended purpose of the study? Do the conclusions logically follow from the findings?	Strength Limitation

 

Trustworthiness Transcript

Today we are going to focus on the importance of using sources we can trust when choosing evidence to support our practice.

As a healthcare professional you are responsible for providing information to patients in many different settings. Some information will be consistent for all, for example the importance of handwashing, good nutrition, exercise. Other information may change with scientific advances. Prior to 2000 who would have thought it possible to map the genes in a human and identify which ones were responsible for particular characteristics? Now, we can not only identify which genes they are, but in some cases can modify that gene to avoid certain complications. It is not impossible to think that future advances will provide similar unforeseen options. It is obvious that we need to use the best available research as support for our practice. So how do we determine what to trust? Last week we discussed the different levels of evidence and how to identify them. Now we will assess the articles you have found to decide if they can be trusted as foundation for our practice.

You will find that each journal has it’s own style: type face, order within the table of contents, types of articles published. While there is variation in style, a research article will generally follow the same outline of information. This is helpful when looking for a particular type of information. This general outline will begin with the title of the article. This title is one of the things that a database search engine uses to produce a results list so it may include a lot of information. It is not usually a “catchy” phrase. The authors are listed in order of the amount of work they contributed to the article. This means they are rarely in alphabetical order! When citing articles do not change the order of the names. Some journals will include just the author’s name; others include all of their professional credentials. These credentials may help you to determine the professional level of education but are not always essential. Next is a short paragraph providing an overview of what the article is about. It may identify the results of the research and the conclusion in a very brief statement. Reading the abstract when doing your database search can help you determine if the article will possibly fit with your clinical question and can save time when screening but it does not give you the complete information you need to evaluate the article for your annotated bibliography. The article itself begins with an introduction of the topic, what is currently known about the topic and why the author’s chose to do this research. The next section will describe how the study was designed, who the participants were and how they were chosen. The body of the article will describe what information was obtained and how it was analyzed. If statistical tests were used these will be identified in this section. The next section will describe what results were discovered and a discussion of how these results fit with the authors’ design will follow. Research articles are usually summarized in a conclusion section. The strengths and limitations of the study and possible topics for further study are included. All of the material that the authors’ used to support their article is included in the reference list.

An Institutional Review Board, or IRB, is a group composed of healthcare professionals, community members, and those with expertise in the law whose purpose is to review proposals for research that will be conducted on human subjects. Organizations that perform research such as universities, medical centers, manufacturers may have an IRB. Their review is designed to reduce or eliminate risk to those who choose to participate in a study. The research must have a defined purpose and justify the time and expense of conducting the study, and provisions need to be in place to protect the privacy of participations. If your article reports on research that has used human subjects you should be able to find an indication of IRB approval. If it is a retrospective chart review, IRB approval will not be necessary because there is no physical risk, however you may find a statement about how personal information was de-identified in the data collection.

While the general concepts of evaluation for trustworthiness are similar for both qualitative and quantitative research, there will be some differences. You will find checklists for each type on the Canvas homepage. You may not find each particular item in every article but you should become comfortable with the general concepts identified. Let’s begin with qualitative research. Remember that qualitative studies are describing the experience of an individual or group of people. The results are considered accurate because of this. When looking at the study you want to be able to identify how the data was collected and how it is interpreted. While qualitative data is not used for prediction of it’s effect in a larger setting, the findings can be applied in a different or similar situation. This is transferability.

When you read the conclusions does the author’s interpretation of the results make sense? Bias can be encountered in many forms. It may be result of funding, profession, or personal issues. It may not be possible to eliminate bias completely but if a potential for bias exists it must be identified. The reader of the research can then make a decision about how important this bias is to their purpose.

When answering the questions from the Trustworthiness tools, you need to have a general outlook. The credentials give us an idea of whether the author has a degree but it does not necessarily identify whether they are an expert in the field of the study. If the authors’ have a conflict of interest, such as being a speaker for a manufacturer whose product is used in the research, this should be identified. When reading the introduction can you understand why the study is being done and what the author hopes to discover? At this level in your education you may not be able to identify if the methods are the best ones to use, but I am sure that a research class where this will be discussed is in your future!

Is there a description of how participants were chosen? Is there an indication of what the study protocol is and how it was implemented.? Do you see an IRB approval?

 

Remember that qualitative studies look at a lived experience. Do the authors’ describe how they preserved the privacy of the participants? How did they record and evaluate the data? Do they explain their findings well?

Did the study findings support what they set out to do?

When evaluating quantitative studies there are some slightly different concepts to consider. Validity is a measurement of accuracy. Internal validity has to do with the study itself: did it accurately measure the results? External validity indicates that the results were accurate for that particular group PLUS they can be used to predict that other groups would have the same results. Because quantitative studies are measuring the effects of an intervention, all of the data collected must be measured the same way. The difference between the two concepts is the number of people looking at the data. Intra-rater reliability measures the fact that a single researcher looks at each data set in exactly the same way. It is measured to the same standard. Inter-rater reliability is a measurement that multiple researchers use the same standard the same way to compile accurate information. Measurement accuracy also requires objectivity.

Some of the Trustworthiness tool’s criteria are the same for both qualitative and quantitative studies.

The methods section of a quantitative study includes a detailed description of whether there was a control group used and how the groups were assigned. The description of the protocol for the study should be thorough.

Quantitative results will have an indication of what statistical tests were applied to determine the effect of the intervention. If you see indications of these statistical tests you can be sure you have a quantitative study. The determination of the accuracy of the results is beyond the scope of this class but as mentioned previously, a research class is very likely in your future, and these tests will be discussed in greater detail.

Now that you have the tools to use, please choose one of your articles. Take some time to evaluate the article. Use the Discussion Board to identify any challenges you encountered.

This is the second question that need to answer

After using the Trustworthiness tool to evaluate one of your articles, discuss the challenges you encountered .