1. All articles should be included on the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Tool that’s attached. There should be three articles on the table: 2 quantitative and 1 qualitative. For this assignment, use the 2 quantitative articles, which are either descriptive or correlational. These must be recent research articles less than 5 years old and be related to a National Practice Problem. Use the most current version of Microsoft Word, you can tell the document is saved as the current version because it will end in “docx.” plagiarism must NOT be observed. This written assignment will be screened for originality by Turnitin.

1. Use each component listed below as a Level I header in the APA formatted paper.

The assignment includes the following components: 1. Create the Title Page 2. Introduction (1-2 paragraphs)

a. Use the title of your paper as the header for the introduction section. b. Introduce the practice problem. c. Discuss your quantitative descriptive or correlational design research

articles. d. Present the purpose of the paper.

3. Analysis of the Practice Problem (1-2 paragraphs) a. Present the significance of the practice problem. b. Present the prevalence and incidence of the practice problem from the

selected articles and you may use other sources for prevalence and incidence, such as the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization).

4. Evidence Synthesis: 2-3 paragraphs. Include the following: a. Using the two quantitative (descriptive or correlational) articles, write a

synthesis of evidence to address the selected practice problem. b. Do not use the non-research evidence here in the synthesis. c. Identify the main themes and salient evidence that emerge from the two

articles. (Cited) d. Compare and contrast the main points from your two articles. (Cited) e. Present an objective synthesis of research evidence about the practice

problem. (Cited) f. This synthesis must be a summary of the merged themes and findings of the

two articles and cannot be a review of each article separately. (Cited) 5. Appraisal of the Evidence to Address the Practice Problem: (1 paragraph)

a. Include the following for both articles: i. Appraise the applicability of the evidence to describe the practice

problem. 6. Conclusion

a. In one concise paragraph, provide a clear and logical conclusion summarizing your main points in this assignment.

7. Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool

 

 

a. Completes all sections of the Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool with all articles included. Include the following:

i. Includes two quantitative descriptive or correlational research articles and one qualitative article.

ii. Complete all columns accurately and appraise the quality and the levels of evidence.

8. The Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool a. Include the completed Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool

with this assignment. Do not embed the document in the paper. Writing Requirements (APA format)

• Scholarly writing is in the third person. • Length: 4-6 pages (not including title page, reference page, or appendix) • 1-inch margins • Double-spaced pages • 12-point Times New Roman or 11-point Arial font • Level I Headers • In-text citations • Title page • Reference page • Standard English usage and mechanics

AppendixG TEMPLATE- Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Johns Hopkins Individual Evidence Summary Tool

	EBP Project Practice Question:
Reviewer Name(s)	Article Number	Author, Date, and Title	Type of Evidence	Population, size, and setting	Intervention	Findings that help answer the EBP question	Measures used	Limitations	Evidence level & quality	Notes to Team
	EXAMPLE 1	EXAMPLE Michaud, T.L., Siahpush, M., Schwab, R. J., Eiland, L. A., DeVany, M., Hansen, G., Slachetka, T. S., Boilesen, E., Tak, H. J., Wilson, F. A., Wang, H., Pagán, J. A., & Su, D. (2018). Remote patient monitoring and clinical outcomes for post-discharge patients with type 2 diabetes. Population Health Management, 21(5), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2017.0175   Permalink https://chamberlain.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CUCON_INST/f6kb8f/cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2019041682	EXAMPLE Quantitative research with a retrospective, observational design.	EXAMPLE Sample/size = 955 patients 19 years of age and older with T2D that were discharged from the inpatient setting within 30 days   Sample Size = 955   Setting = Nebraska	EXAMPLE This study looked at the effects of utilizing a remote patient monitoring system on the health outcomes of patients with T2D.	EXAMPLE After the study, 69% of those who began the study with an HbA1c of >9% ended the study with an HbA1c of ≤9%. Similarly, from baseline to the end of the study, patients’ mean weight had decreased from 225lb to 222lb, and mean BMI had decreased from 35.59 to 35.23. Patient activation scores rose from 63.37 at baseline to 69.17 at the end of the study.	EXAMPLE The researchers measured HbA1c, weight, BMI, BP, and patient activation scores.	EXAMPLE One limitation is inconsistent devices used, as some patients could use their glucometer rather than the one provided in the study. Other limitations include that there was no expectation to complete measurements on the weekends.	EXAMPLE Level III, Quality C

 

 

© 2021 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing

Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals

 

Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Appendix G

 

 

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice

Individual Evidence Summary Tool (Appendix G)

 

 

 

EBP Question:
Reviewer name(s)	Article number	Author, date, and title	Type of evidence	Population, size, and setting	Intervention	Findings that help answer the EBP question	Measures used	Limitations	Evidence level and quality	Notes to team

 

Directions for use of the Individual Evidence Summary Tool

Purpose: Use this form to document and collate the results of the review and appraisal of each piece of evidence in preparation for evidence synthesis. The table headers indicate important elements of each article that will contribute to the synthesis process. The data in each cell should be complete enough that the other team members are able to gather all relevant information related to the evidence without having to go to each source article.

See Chapter 11, Lessons from Practice, for examples of completed tools.

 

Reviewer name(s):

Record the member(s) of the team who are providing the information for each article. This will provide tracking if there are follow-up items or additional questions on an individual piece of evidence.

Article number:

Assign a number to each piece of evidence included in the table. This organizes the individual evidence summary and provides an easy way to reference articles.

Author, date, and title:

Record the last name of the first author of the article, the publication/communication date, and the title. This will help track articles throughout the literature search, screening, and review process. It is also helpful when someone has authored more than one publication included in the review.

Type of evidence:

Indicate the type of evidence for each source. This should be descriptive of the study or project design (e.g., randomized control trial, meta-analysis, mixed methods, qualitative, systematic review, case study, literature review) and not simply the level on the evidence hierarchy.

 

Population, size, and setting:

For research evidence, provide a quick view of the population, number of participants, and study location. For non-research evidence population refers to target audience, patient population, or profession. Non-research evidence may or may not have a sample size and/or location as found with research evidence.

Intervention:

Record the intervention(s) implemented or discussed in the article. This should relate to the intervention or comparison elements of your PICO question.

Findings that help answer the EBP question:

List findings from the article that directly answer the EBP question. These should be succinct statements that provide enough information that the reader does not need to return to the original article. Avoid directly copying and pasting from the article.

Measures used:

These are the measures and/or instruments (e.g., counts, rates, satisfaction surveys, validated tools, subscales) the authors used to determine the answer to the research question or the effectiveness of their intervention. Consider these measures as identified in the evidence for collection during implementation of the EBP team’s project.

Limitations:

Provide the limitations of the evidence—both as listed by the authors as well as your assessment of any flaws or drawbacks. Consider the methodology, quality of reporting, and generalizability to the population of interest. Limitations should be apparent from the team’s appraisals using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tools (Appendices E and F). It can be helpful to consider the reasons an article did not receive a “high” quality rating because these reasons are limitations identified by the team.

Evidence level and quality:

Using the Research and Non-Research Evidence Appraisal tools (Appendices E and F), record the level (I-V) and quality (A, B or C) of the evidence. When possible, at least two reviewers should determine the level and quality.

Notes to team:

The team uses this section to keep track of items important to the EBP process not captured elsewhere on this tool. Consider items that will be helpful to have easy reference to when conducting the evidence synthesis.

© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page | 1

 

© 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing Page | 3