28 Jan Ethical Issues in Qualitative

NUR4166 Nursing Research

Week 1 Discussion

DQ1 The majority of the discussion questions in this course allow you to work on the Main Assignment (PICOT Poster Presentation) over the four weeks of the course. You will present sections of the assignment and you will all assist your peers to refine and improve on the sections each week.

Part One – Using one of the PICOT Questions Templates provided, present YOUR PICOT question and your observations/hunches/reasons that support your choice.

NUR4165 Templates and Definitions for PICOT Questions_KU.docx

Please use the attached template and then copy and paste it into your response. Do not attach the actual document.

In response to your peers, provide meaningful feedback – for example;

Is the question specific enough or is it too broad?

Is the question feasible?

ETC

DQ2 Part Two – In the first question you provided your observations/hunches/reasons for the PICOT question you provided.

In this question briefly provide Clinical Significance supported by the literature. Clinical significance means that the literature provides evidence to support the practice as important to patient care, patient outcomes, and as such is the best choice for patient care. Also refer to the provided article. Be sure to provide the PICOT question to begin this post.

In response to your peers provide meaningful feedback – for example;

Is the literature current and directly related to the question?

Did your peer provide strong support from the literature to support the question?

Did your peer support the Clinical Significance of the PICOT question with the literature?

ETC.

Heavey, E. (2015). Differentiating statistical significance and clinical significance. AmericanNurseToday.com 10(5), 26-28.

ANA members can retrieve the article online by logging in at https://americannursetoday.com/differentiating-statistical-significance-clinical-significance

NUR4166 Nursing Research

Week 2 Discussion

DQ1 Critical appraisal resources are helpful when evaluating research studies. This is an important part of the evidence-based practice process.

Review one of the links found on the American Nurses Association website http://www.nursingworld.org/Research-Toolkit/Appraising-the-Evidence that can be used to help you critique a research study. Identify the importance of critiquing research articles as a beginning researcher.

DQ2 Part Three – Provide your complete Review of the Literature (ROL) and the Organizational Table (see Evidence-Based Practice Step by Step Article 5 pg 50) for your literature.

Be sure to provide the PICOT question to begin this post.

In response to your peers provide meaningful feedback – for example;

Does the ROL reflect the question?

Is the ROL clear and concise, logical and orderly?

Is more information needed? What additional information can you suggest?

Is there excessive quoting?

Is the conclusion statement strong and supported by the evidence provided?

ETC.

NUR4166 Nursing Research

Week 3 Discussion

DQ1 Part Four – Provide a paragraph summary addressing the implications to nursing practice & patient outcomes.

Be sure to provide your PICOT question to begin this post.

In response to your peers provide meaningful feedback – for example;

Has this research question already been addressed?

Will this research question improve patient care or a healthcare process?

DQ2 Nursing journals are one way we communicate what we know; research supported practice guidelines, professional practice issues, tools and tips for professional advancement, etc. It is important to share our knowledge with each other – you do not need to be a MSN or PhD to disseminate research in a meaningful way. Consider some of the recent nursing articles you read – what were the authors’ credentials? Often several authors are cited – working with others with publishing experience is a great way to get started.

Review the list of nursing journals on this link from Lippincott’s NursingCenter.com

Choose a publication and choose “About this Publication”

Choose “Author Guidelines”

Choose one or two journals and review the author guidelines. Consider papers you have written or ideas you have had – are any of these journals ones that you would consider submitting a paper? Why or why not?

NOTE – It seems that you are not taken to “Author Guidelines” any longer when clicking onto a journal.

You have to go to the journal homepage specifically.

For example here are the author guidelines for Health Care Management Review. The purpose of this activity is for you to see that every journal has a very specific aim and purpose. I have been told that every manuscript has a home – meaning that if you are rejected from one journal do not stop submitting … there is one out there which is a fit for the manuscript.

Purpose of the Journal

Health Care Management Review (HCMR) publishes contemporary and relevant articles on specific, innovative health care leadership and multidisciplinary practice issues from any phase of the theory-research-practice cycle of health care management. The journal is designed for health care administrators and academics in all services, agencies, systems, and professional bodies. Emphasis is given to evidence-based practice, when appropriate.

Manuscript Review

HCMR is a refereed journal. Published manuscripts are reviewed, selected, and developed with the guidance of the journal’s editorial and review board. Manuscripts are reviewed with the understanding that neither the manuscript nor its essential content has been published or is under consideration by another journal. Authors must release copyright ownership of their manuscript at the time of its submission to the journal.

Manuscript Preparation

Manuscripts must be submitted electronically to [email protected].com. Correspondence regarding publication should be addressed to Barbara Miller,

Administrative Coordinator, HCMR, 323 Norristown Road, Suite 200, Ambler, PA 19002.

The maximum manuscript length is 18 pages, including figures, tables, and references. As a general rule, an 18-page paper should have no more than 4 figures or tables. Include complete references, not to exceed 25, from 1990 forward. Do not reference commonly known research or commonly thought beliefs. Also include an abstract of 30 words or less and four key words.

It is critical that authors use the word processing “insert continuous line numbering” feature. This will apply a unique line number to each line in a manuscript and references to which reviewers will refer when giving comments on each manuscript’s content. The author is responsible for making revisions according to the editor’s recommendations. If major revisions are recommended, authors can submit a revised version

of the manuscript, which is again subject to review. Insert page numbers on each page’s upper right corner. Subdivide the manuscript into main sections by inserting subheads in the text. Subheads should be succinct, meaningful, creative, and similar in sense and tone.

Articles that are selected for publication are edited by the editorial staff at Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Authors have the opportunity to review and approve the final article prior to publication.

NUR4166 Nursing Research

Week 4 Discussion

DQ1 WELCOME TO THE EVIDENCE BASED POSTER PRESENTATION WEEK!

presentation image

Individual PICOT Project – Presentation of Posters – Student Peer Evaluations

For your initial response – upload your PICOT Poster (as an image) with a brief summary.

First convert your poster from a PPT file to a JPEG file.

Save it in as high a resolution as you can. Anything like 1400 by 900 dpi or higher. Many people have large monitors and have their resolution set hi so low resolution images will look blurry.

1. With the PPT file open choose “Save As”. Click on “Format” and you will see these choices.

Instructions

2. Chose “JPEG” – you see format now says JPEG. Make sure you note where you saved it on your computer so you can find it again!

In the below example it is on the Desktop.

Instructions

Now you can submit an “Image” directly into the discussion –

After you click on reply, use the 3rd Icon from the left on the bottom row of the editor box. It looks like a picture of “mountains and a sun or moon”.

Tool Bar

You can post your summary directly into the same response box and below the image.

In response to your peers use the Peer Evaluation Form below to critique 2 peer presentations.

Poster Presentation Peer Evaluation Form.docx

Please use the attached form and then copy and paste it into your response. Do not attach the actual document which needs to be downloaded.

Name of student being critiqued:

Name of Evaluator:

Areas to be addressed:

Comments:

Relevant topic and evidence.

Ability to explain content in clear and concise manner.

Quality of ppt slides (organization, visual appeal, flow)

Professionalism.

What I liked best about your presentation.

What I thought you could improve.

One question I have.

DQ2

Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research – Research conducted in the clinical and community venues and qualitative research conducted using the “internet as the community” must adhere to the principles of ethics and research integrity must be maintained.

Read the research article by Mikal, J., Hurst, S., & Conway, M. (2016). Ethical issues using Twitter for population-level depression monitoring: A Qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(22). DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0105-5

After reviewing the article identify key issues related to intrusiveness, subject vulnerability, potential harm or risk, informed consent, and confidentiality, which should be considered by researchers before studying an internet community.

What unique ethical issues and challenges does the research conducted with social media present