Introduction Health Professionals

Added on - Mar 2020

Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 4 of 12 pages
Running head: CRITICAL EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE 1Critical evaluation of evidenceStudent’s NameUniversity Affiliation
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE2ContentsIntroduction......................................................................................................................................2Part A...............................................................................................................................................2Article one.......................................................................................................................................2Authorship....................................................................................................................................3Research aims..............................................................................................................................3Design..........................................................................................................................................3Findings........................................................................................................................................4Strengths and weaknesses............................................................................................................4Article Two......................................................................................................................................4Authorship....................................................................................................................................5Research aims..............................................................................................................................5Design..........................................................................................................................................5Findings........................................................................................................................................6Strengths and weaknesses............................................................................................................6Part B...............................................................................................................................................6The barrier’s for the application of evidence in practice.............................................................6How closely the research studies provided align with the PICO question/elements...................7Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE3References........................................................................................................................................9Critical evaluation of evidenceIntroductionHealth professionals should be well-informed with current knowledge to allow them todeliver effective care and remain professionally pertinent. Also, it is vital for care providers toinvestigate the quality of new evidence before application in practice. Nursing research allowsnurses to embrace best practice and evidence-based practice (EBP). The primary role of EBP isto deliver the most effective care that is available, with the aim of promoting patient outcome.This role is buttressed by the fact that clients expect to receive the best care based on the presentevidence. EBP promotes a culture of inquiry in healthcare professional. It also promotes patientsafety, improves clinical outcomes and minimises variation in patient outcomes (Boswell &Cannon, 2015). Nurses thus require critical appraisal skills as well as tools to advance theirpractice. Critical evaluation skills help users to determine which evidence is authoritative for usein practice. This assignment will evaluate the evidence presented in two articles on the use ofstimulants to improve academic performance. Part B will discuss the barriers to the applicationof evidence in practice and how closely the articles adhere to the PICO elements.Part AArticle oneHildt, E., Lieb, K., & Franke, A. G. (2014). Life context of pharmacological academicperformance enhancement among university students – a qualitative approach. BMC MedicalEthics, 15(1), 23-23. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-23
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE4AuthorshipThe authors are better placed to explore this topic due to their qualification andexperience of working in the university. Hildt is an expert in philosophy and heads neuroethicsresearch groups. Besides, her focus and interest is neurophilosophy, neuroethics and humangenetics (Illes & Sahakian, 2013). Her knowledge in this area allows a better understanding ofthe human brain, principles of thoughts and conscience (Rabadan, 2015). Hildt is affiliated to theJohannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. Lieb and Franke are experts in psychiatry andpsychotherapy. Based on their expertise, these authors understand mental illnesses andprescriptions. Both authors are affiliated to University Medical Centre where they work in thedepartment of psychiatry and psychotherapy. The three authors declared that they have nocompeting interest in relation to the topic of study.Research aimsThe study aimed to investigate the student’s experience and the effects of the use ofprescription and illicit stimulants such as methylphenidate and amphetamines. Their researchquestions were: Why are stimulants used in academic contexts either by students and otherpersons? What are the impacts? Does the usage of stimulants in academic contexts offerbenefits? How are students’ life affected? What are the side-effects encountered? (Hildt, Lieb, &Franke, 2014).The authors noted that there was lack of evidence-based data about thecircumstantial factors as well as the real world impacts of academic performance enhancementthrough the use of stimulant drugs. This argument was used to justify the need for study.DesignThe study used a sampling methodology, whereby 18 university students were involved.Only the participants who reported non-medical intake of illicit and prescription stimulants to
Desklib Logo
You are reading a preview
Upload your documents to download or

Become a Desklib member to get access