Evidence-Based Practice

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE 1
Evidence-based practice
Student’s name
Code and course name
Instructor’s name
Institution affiliation
City, state
Date

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE 2
Question 1
Yes. The study has a clearly defined research question. A research question is an
answerable query regarding a particular issue or concern. It helps define the idea of what the
researcher intends to look into making it the first and crucial step in research (Strnadová,
2014 pp. 18) The influenza vaccine is endowed for Aboriginal children aged lesser than five
years old to children aged six months. However, in Victoria, only two percent of Aboriginal
children receive the vaccine to keep them safe from influenza (Hewagama, 2010 pp. 688).
The research aimed at determining whether sending a booklet or a latter with the advantages
of influenza vaccines as well as the downsides of not having it to guardians or parents would
result to a refinement in the imbibing of the influenza vaccine amidst Aboriginal identified
children. The researcher wanted to see if parents and guardians would avail their children for
the influenza vaccine amid Aboriginal identified children when more knowledge was offered
to them.
Question 2:
The question is relevant to nursing but to explain this, it is essential to understand why
nursing was developed as a profession. Nursing pays attention to the care of families,
societies, and individuals so that they can maintain, attain or recover a quality of life and an
optimal health (Hoeve, 2014, pp 296, 301). How would increasing numbers of Aboriginal
identified children accessing influenza vaccines be relevant to nursing? More of these
children will not be vulnerable to the effects of influenza so the end goal of nursing which is
to enhance optimal health, as well as the quality of life for all individuals young and old, will
be achieved.
Question 3:
What were the possible risks of participating in the study?

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE 3
No risks were presented.
Did the authors identify these risks?
No.
The authors noted that the research had been endorsed by the Monash University
Human Research Ethics Committee under a special Human Ethics Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander ethical review. The code given for verification was (#8632). (Sourced from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30279091).
The study involved a waiver of consent for guardians and parents under Australian
2.3.9 of the National Statement (Sourced from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30279091). The agenda was to increase the number of
Aboriginal identified children by passing more knowledge to parents and guardians. After the
parents or the guardians received the booklet or the letter, it was up to them to decide if the
information in either was critical enough to allow them to avail their children for the
influenza vaccine. Approval was however not a matter of concern because the parents are
aware of the advantages of allowing their children to have the vaccine but had to be made
available for legal matters.
Did you identify any potential risks associated with the study that was not recognized by the
authors?
Yes.
In every society, there have to be illiterates. The letters and the booklets were sent out
to parents and guardians regardless of where they come from. In this case, there is a
probability that two out of ten did not clearly understand the message and instead just
regarded the letter as one of the government extortion plans yet the vaccine is funded. It can

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE 4
be explained as lack of information either due to living in remote areas, culture or general
ignorance assuming the high-priced nature of medication in the nation would not allow them
to pay up. Additionally, some live in remote regions and perhaps did not have a way of
getting the letters and booklets efficiently (Dolea, 2010, pp. 381).
Question 4:
The study involved a multiarm parallel randomized control trial which had one
control group and two intervention groups. The intervention groups and the control group
participants are selected randomly to ensure no bias and a follow up on all is done. The
outcomes are then recorded for publication.
Was this a suitable study design for the given research question?
Yes.
The study design involved a different way to recall for more parents to avail with their
Aboriginal identified children allowing no bias or favor in the process as well as
randomization which also had the mandate of ensuring no bias in statistical data would be
recorded. The result also makes the study design suitable for the study.
Question 5:
Households totaling to 5534 which had aboriginal children were randomized with
1844 receiving no direct communication, 1845 receiving the booklets and 1845 receiving a
letter. (Sourced from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30279091). The only parameter
used in this study was the guardians or parents of Victorian children who were identified as
Aboriginal. These were all the parents of children identified as Aboriginal for ages lesser than
five years to children aged six months. The inclusion criteria were all parents for such
children. The exclusion parameter was all other children rather than those identified as