Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the process of searching for, appraising, and integrating the most relevant, best research evidence to answer a clinical question or address a health care challenge. This best research evidence is weighed along with patient preferences and values, organizational data, and professional expertise. Because of this, doctoral professionals must develop a working knowledge of how to critically appraise research studies and the evidence they provide. Qualitative studies often provide the best evidence and are becoming more and more important in the realm of EBP. Professional literature provides tools to assist in developing this skill.
DEMONSTRATION OF PROFICIENCY
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the course competencies through the following assessment scoring guide criteria:
Competency 1: Apply the steps of the evidence-based practice process to a health care challenge.
Compose a PICOT question that the researcher might have used as a foundation for the study.
Competency 2: Evaluate qualitative research methods and results as they relate to evidence-based practice.
Summarize the study by describing its purpose, method, design, and results.
Evaluate a qualitative study by applying a critical appraisal tool.
Competency 5: Apply knowledge of your own role and those of other professions to appropriately assess and address the health care needs of patients and to promote and advance the health of populations.
Explain how health care professionals in multiple roles could use the study findings to work together to provide care, promote health, and prevent disease.
Competency 6: Address assessment purpose in a well-organized text, incorporating appropriate evidence and tone in grammatically sound sentences.
Sample Solution
2009). Semantic Feature Analysis is an approach that utilizes techniques to strengthen a personâs impaired semantic network (DeLong, Nessler, Wright, & Wambaugh, 2015). During semantic feature analysis treatment, the patient with aphasia works with the treating clinician in a process to generate relevant features that relate to the target word (Coelho, McHugh, & Boyle, 2000). The patient and clinician work through a process to generate semantic attributes about the specific target word. Semantic attributes consist of the superordinate category of a word (i.e. the word âcatâ is a part of the superordinate âanimalâ), associated words, or physical appearance of the target. The clinician may use elicitation of features by asking questions or sentence completion (Papathanasiou, Coppens, & Potaga, 2013). Making connections between features and meaning of target words may increase a patientâs accurate word retrieval process (Coelho et al., 2000). Current research supports the importance of treating persons with aphasia using semantic feature analysis; however, most research lacks focus on patients with only fluent aphasia. Therefore, it is important that further research study the effects semantic feature analysis treatment has on improving overall communication ability in persons with fluent aphasia. The immense literature concerning both aphasia patients and semantic feature analysis treatment proves to both researchers and clinicians the importance of this specific treatment approach. Research by Wisenburn and Mahoney (2009) supports a study related to different treatment approaches for word-finding deficits in individuals with aphasia. Throughout their research findings, semantic feature analysis proved to be an important treatment to increase an aphasia patientâs overall communication. In the Kristensson et al. (2014) study, the researchers aimed to further study the findings of Coelho, Boyle, Wambaugh, and Ferguson regarding the use of semantic feature analysis for individuals with aphasia after stroke to confirm the efficacy of this treatment approach. Their findings suggest it is important to further investigate concurrent aphasia symptoms to create appropriate targets during semantic feature analysis treatment. Intervention targeting naming and everyday life communication is important, so further investigation is needed on what type of patient semantic feature analysis treatment is beneficial (Kristensson et al., 2014). The purpose of the DeLong et al. study was to observe outcomes associated with sema>
2009). Semantic Feature Analysis is an approach that utilizes techniques to strengthen a personâs impaired semantic network (DeLong, Nessler, Wright, & Wambaugh, 2015). During semantic feature analysis treatment, the patient with aphasia works with the treating clinician in a process to generate relevant features that relate to the target word (Coelho, McHugh, & Boyle, 2000). The patient and clinician work through a process to generate semantic attributes about the specific target word. Semantic attributes consist of the superordinate category of a word (i.e. the word âcatâ is a part of the superordinate âanimalâ), associated words, or physical appearance of the target. The clinician may use elicitation of features by asking questions or sentence completion (Papathanasiou, Coppens, & Potaga, 2013). Making connections between features and meaning of target words may increase a patientâs accurate word retrieval process (Coelho et al., 2000). Current research supports the importance of treating persons with aphasia using semantic feature analysis; however, most research lacks focus on patients with only fluent aphasia. Therefore, it is important that further research study the effects semantic feature analysis treatment has on improving overall communication ability in persons with fluent aphasia. The immense literature concerning both aphasia patients and semantic feature analysis treatment proves to both researchers and clinicians the importance of this specific treatment approach. Research by Wisenburn and Mahoney (2009) supports a study related to different treatment approaches for word-finding deficits in individuals with aphasia. Throughout their research findings, semantic feature analysis proved to be an important treatment to increase an aphasia patientâs overall communication. In the Kristensson et al. (2014) study, the researchers aimed to further study the findings of Coelho, Boyle, Wambaugh, and Ferguson regarding the use of semantic feature analysis for individuals with aphasia after stroke to confirm the efficacy of this treatment approach. Their findings suggest it is important to further investigate concurrent aphasia symptoms to create appropriate targets during semantic feature analysis treatment. Intervention targeting naming and everyday life communication is important, so further investigation is needed on what type of patient semantic feature analysis treatment is beneficial (Kristensson et al., 2014). The purpose of the DeLong et al. study was to observe outcomes associated with sema>
