Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry.
Develop a PICO(T) question to address the clinical issue of interest for the Assignment.
Use the key words from the PICO(T) question you developed and search at least four different databases in the Walden Library. Identify at least four relevant systematic reviews or other filtered high-level evidence, which includes meta-analyses, critically-appraised topics (evidence syntheses), critically-appraised individual articles (article synopses). The evidence will not necessarily address all the elements of your PICO(T) question, so select the most important concepts to search and find the best evidence available.
Reflect on the process of creating a PICO(T) question and searching for peer-reviewed research.
Part 3: Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
Create a 6- to 7-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:
Identify and briefly describe your chosen clinical issue of interest.
Describe how you developed a PICO(T) question focused on your chosen clinical issue of interest.
Identify the four research databases that you used to conduct your search for the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Provide Help write my thesis – APA citations of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Describe the levels of evidence in each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, including an explanation of the strengths of using systematic reviews for clinical research. Be specific and provide examples.
Sample Powerpoint presentation Answer
Advanced Levels of Clinical Inquiry and Systematic Reviews
The focus of the clinical issue of interest is the obese children in the community. The focus is to compare community benefits from dietary and physical activity guidance with lack of nutritional or physical activity education. The intention is to reduce weight and health-related concerns among obese children in the community within a period of five years. The comparison is intended to realize which options are favorable to help the obese children in the community. Therefore, when the PICO (T) question is synthesized, it is intended to show the best approach in the clinical issue of interest. The clinical issue is crucial due to the increased number of obese children in society today.
The PICO (T) question was developed by identifying the various aspects of the PICO (T) format. The various elements included the problem which is obese children, the intervention which is dietary and physical activity guidance, whereas the comparison was nutritional or physical activity education and the outcome was to reduce weight and health-related concerns while time span was five years. The question is thus comprehensive since it addressed the various components of the PICO (T) format. The focus of the PICO (T) format is to ensure every element of a clinical issue is captured in the clinical inquiry. The reason is that it helps make the inquiry professional and comprehensive.
The research databases at Walden Library include Child Care & Early Education Research Connections, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database, National Center for Health Statistics, and Embase database. The various databases were used in searching for the peer-reviewed articles that were used in the study. It is also crucial to note that the databases only contain peer-reviewed articles. Walden Library comprises of hundreds of databases that contain high-quality journals. Therefore, sourcing the articles from the databases provides the assurance that the evidence from the papers is verified and thus the information can be relied on to make decisions.
There are various levels of evidence in evidence-based research. The levels of evidence are the ranking systems used to describe the strength of a research study or a clinical trial. It is crucial to note that the design of an article will determine the strength of the evidence. The quality of evidence obtained is used to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. In the four peer-reviewed articles selected for this assignment, they had different levels of evidence. The various levels of evidence include systematic reviews, well-designed control trials, qualitative studies and systematic reviews with meta-analysis. The rankings indicate the credibility of the articles and their effectiveness in addressing obesity issues.
Systematic reviews have various benefits including the ability to synthesize all the available evidence in a particular question. The evidence is sourced from various databases to ensure it is comprehensive. On the other hand, systematic reviews clearly state the objective of the study and make an attempt to justify why the objective is important and finally accomplish the objective. It is also essential to note that inclusion and exclusion criteria are stated clearly. For example, in a peer-reviewed article on ‘a systematic review of psychosocial interventions for adult refugees and asylum seekers,’ the exclusion and inclusion criteria was clearly stated. Therefore, the study remains credible and reliable.
References
Bahia, L., Schaan, C. W., Sparrenberger, K., de Azevedo Abreu, G., Barufaldi, L. A., Coutinho, W., & Schaan, B. D. A. (2018). Overview of meta-analyses on prevention and treatment of childhood obesity. Homework help – Write an essay Jornal de pediatria.
Bourgeois, N., Brauer, P., Simpson, J. R., Kim, S., & Haines, J. (2016). Interventions for prevention of childhood obesity in primary care: a qualitative study. CMAJ open, 4(2), E194.
Adab, P., Pallan, M. J., Lancashire, E. R., Hemming, K., Frew, E., Barrett, T., … & Daley, A. (2018). Effectiveness of a childhood obesity prevention programme delivered through schools, targeting 6 and 7 year olds: cluster randomised controlled trial (WAVES study). bmj, 360, k211.
Rivera, J. Á., de Cossío, T. G., Pedraza, L. S., Aburto, T. C., Sánchez, T. G., & Martorell, R. (2014). Childhood and adolescent overweight and obesity in Latin America: a systematic review. The lancet Diabetes & endocrinology, 2(4), 321-332.
