This assignment will require you to take the PICO, 5 research articles and place them in a table for analysis. You will critique each article and identify the most important parts of the research, analysis, and findings.
Then you will summarize the articles by grading the research, and identifying gaps in the literature as well as possible interventions (see grading rubric and examples).
Instructions:
1. Identify your PICO or research question of interest
2. Gather 5 research articles on your topic: be sure to save them and submit them along with the matrix; please make sure they are PDF documents.
3. Do not use clinical guidelines or Cochran Reviews, abstracts, future research reports or poster presentations. You can search for research only by indicating “research” when you do an advanced search. If you can’t answer a lot of the questions, it is probably not a research article.
4. We do not recommend that you use more than one qualitative research article or systematic review or meta analysis. These are harder to evaluate because they have so much more information in them. Remember it is not individuals in these studies- it is the articles. Use the reference list in the systematic reviews or meta analyses to find individual studies that may be easier to understand and use.
5. Review sample matrices and summaries
6. Use matrix table- one for each article and critique the parts of the article using the rubric
7. Be sure to identify the evaluation tool used to grade the evidence such as (See below for grading the evidence tools)
8. Identify where there are issues with the articles and what gaps were not addressed with the research; be prepared this may change the way you look at your topic or may result in a slightly different direction for your area of interest. This is ok- that is what you want to accomplish with this assignment. It will really assist you as you move forward with your project.
9. For this assignment you will turn in the matrix tables, summary, references and pdf copies of your 5 articles.
10. Key definitions:
1. Level of evidence: the process used to evaluate the level of evidence of your articles- such as Jones Hopkins, Cincinnati Children’s evaluation etc,
2. Evaluation tool: use the method and describe how you arrived at the scoring or knowing that the article included all content it needed to- such as CASP;
3. Instrument: What type of instrument or tool was used in the article? This could be a depression screening tool, Nurse satisfaction tool etc. Describe the instrument- how many questions, reliability- consistency with test-retest, Cronbach Alpha, inter-rater reliablity; validity with content validity, face validity
Links to critical appraisal tools to evaluate research quality:
Joanna Briggs Institute (joannabriggs.org) https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
CASP checklists https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
Mixed Method appraisal checklist McGill: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/page/24607821/FrontPage
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Legend tools- very helpful: https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/research/divisions/j/anderson-center/evidence-based-care/legend
Johns Hopkins EBP Models and Tools: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/evidence-based-practice/ijhn_2017_ebp.html
My PICOT Question: “In the adolescent population with mental health issues seen in primary care settings, how does utilization of Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) toolkit impact patient referrals to the psychiatric department over 3 months
Population: Adolescents asked screening questions in primary care setting
I: Ask Suicide Screening questions toolkit
C: those not screened with the toolkit
O: prevention of suicide attempts or worsening of depression
T: 3 months
ARTICLES
Quantitative Articles MUST be Used. Kindly help verify that the attached articles are Quantitative
I found the following articles, you can use any 5 of them: however; I don’t know which ones are quantitative, I found a bunch of these: the articles are attached.
Characteristics of cancer patients who died by suicide: A quantitative study of 15‐year coronial records
Vera Y. Men1 | Clifton R. Emery1 | Paul S. F. Yip1
Validation of the ask suicide-screening questions (ASQ) with youth in outpatient specialty and primary care clinics
Laika D. Aguinaldo, Shayla Sullivant, Elizabeth C. Lanzillo, Abigail Ross, Jian-Ping He, Andrea Bradley-Ewing, Jeffrey A. Bridge, Lisa M. Horowitz, Elizabeth A. Wharff
Development of the Uni Virtual Clinic: an online programme for improving the mental health of university students
Louise M. Farrer , Amelia Gulliver, Natasha Katruss, Kylie Bennett, Anthony Bennett, Kathina Ali† and Kathleen M. Griffiths
The Feasibility and Impact of a Suicide Risk Screening Program in Rural Adult Primary Care: A Pilot Test of the Ask Suicide-Screening Questions Toolkit
Mary A. LeCloux, Ph.D., Mathew Weimer, M.D., Stacey L. Culp, Ph.D., Karissa Bjorkgren, B.S., Samantha Service, M.S., John V. Campo, M.D.
Improving Suicidal Ideation Screening and Suicide Prevention Strategies on Adult Nonbehavioral Health Units
Anne C. Lindstrom, DNP, APRN Rush University, Northwestern Medicine Central DuPage Hospital, Winfield, IL Melinda Earle, DNP, RN
Contact between patients with suicidal ideation and nurses in mental health wards: Development and psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire
Joeri Vandewalle, Veerle Duprez,1 Dimitri Beeckman, Ann Van Hecke,and Sofie Verhaeghe
Patient Opinions About Screening for Suicide Risk in the Adult Medical Inpatient Unit
Deborah J. Snyder, Elizabeth D. Ballard, Ian H. Stanley, Erica Ludi, Julie Kohn-Godbout, Maryland Pao, Lisa M. Horowitz.
Screening Youth for Suicide Risk in Medical Settings (Time to Ask Questions)
Lisa M. Horowitz, PhD, MPH, Jeffrey A. Bridge, PhD, Maryland Pao, MD, Edwin D. Boudreaux
