USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Week 4 Project
Instructions
Appraising the Evidence and Creating an Evaluation Table
This assignment will help you take the next step in translating research to practice. An RCA must be done on all articles from the literature search that at first blush seemed appropriate to answer your PICOT question. Your literature search most likely resulted in over one hundred articles. Reviewing all of them, while appropriate when creating your own quality improvement (QI) project, is not the most efficient use of time. Since the purpose of this assignment is to learn the process of appraising the evidence and creating an Evaluation Table, you will be provided with results from a pared-down literature search for this assignment that is related to the topic you have been working on. The link to the reference list from that literature search is below. You will use these studies for the assignment this week and in Submissions Area. (ATTACHED)
Tasks:
This week, you will focus on appraising the quantitative studies in the provided reference list only, reviewing them, and objectively assessing their value for the intervention for your project. You will then summarize the studies in the Evaluation Table, which will provide a snapshot of the external evidence. In Week 7, you will create a Synthesis Table and evaluate the results. For now, your focus is on setting up an Evaluation Table and adding the quantitative evidence. (ATTACHED)
To prepare for the assignment:
- Complete RCAs of your quantitative studies using the appropriate RCA checklists.
- Complete RCAs of the quantitative studies only from the Reference List using the appropriate RCA checklists.
Click
here
to review the RCA checklists.
- Use the Evaluation Table Template, a Microsoft Word document that can be accessed from the link.
- Develop an Evaluation Table that includes the quantitative studies you have appraised.
Submission Details:
Copies of the RCA checklists for the quantitative studies in one document.
An evaluation table that includes the quantitative studies.
Name your compilation as SU_NSG7020_W4_A2_LastName_FirstInitial .
Page 1 of 7
Evidence, Effectiveness, and Clinical Quality
©2014 South University
Reference List—Scenario 2
Barnett, A., Smith B., Lord, S. R., Williams, M., & Baumand, A. (2003). Community-based group exercise
improves balance and reduces falls in at-risk older people: A randomized controlled trial. Age Ageing,
32(4), 407–414.
Abstract
Background: Recent studies have found that moderate-intensity exercise is an effective intervention
strategy for preventing falls in older people. However, research is required to determine whether
supervised group exercise programs conducted in community settings with at-risk older people referred
by their health care practitioner are also effective in improving physical functioning and preventing falls in
this group.
Objectives: To determine whether participation in a weekly group exercise program with ancillary home
exercises over 1 year improves balance, muscle strength, reaction time, physical functioning, and health
status and prevents falls among at-risk, community-dwelling older people.
Methods: The sample comprised 163 people residing in South Western Sydney,
Australia, aged over 65 years identified as at risk of falling, using a standardized assessment screen by
their general practitioners or hospital-based physiotherapists. Subjects were randomized into either an
exercise intervention group or a control group. Physical performance and general health measures were
assessed at baseline and repeated 6-months into the trial. Falls were measured over a 12-month follow-
up period using monthly postal surveys.
Results: At baseline, both groups were well matched in their physical performance, health, and activity
levels. The intervention subjects attended a median of 23 exercise classes over the year, and most
undertook the home exercise sessions at least weekly. At retest, the exercise group performed
significantly better than the controls in three of six balance measures: postural sway on the floor with eyes
open, postural sway on the floor with eyes closed and coordinated stability. The groups did not differ at
retest in measures of strength, reaction time, and walking speed or on Short-Form 36, physical activity
scale for the elderly, and fear of falling scales. Within the 12-month trial period, the rate of falls in the
intervention group was 40% lower than that in the control group (IRR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.36–0.99).
Conclusions: These findings indicate that participation in a weekly group exercise program with ancillary
home exercises can improve balance and reduce the rate of falling in at-risk, community-dwelling older
people.
Page 2 of 7
Evidence, Effectiveness, and Clinical Quality
©2014 South University
Chang, J. T., Morton, S. C., Rubenstein, L. Z., Mojica, W. A., Maglione, M., Suttorp, M. J., . . . Shekelle,
P. G. (2004). Interventions for the prevention of falls in older adults:
systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. British Medical
Journal, 328(7441), 680–683. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC381224/pdf/bmj32800680
Abstract
Objective: To assess the relative effectiveness of interventions to prevent falls in
older adults belonging to either a usual care group or a control group.
Design: Systematic review and meta-analyses.
Data sources: Medline, HealthSTAR, Embase, the Cochrane Library, other
Health-related databases, and the reference lists from review articles and
systematic reviews.
Data extraction: Components of falls intervention—multifactorial falls risk
assessment with management program, exercise, environmental
modifications, or education.
Results: Forty trials were identified. A random effects analysis combining trials with
risk ratio data showed a reduction in the risk of falling (risk ratio 0.88, 95%
CI 0.82–0.95), whereas combining trials with incidence rate data showed a reduction in
the monthly rate of falling (IRR 0.80, 0.72–0.88). The effect of individual components was assessed by
metaregression.
A multifactorial falls risk assessment and management program was the most effective component on risk
of falling (0.82, 0.72–0.94, NNT 11) and monthly fall rate (0.63, 0.49–0.83; 11.8 fewer falls in treatment
group per 100 patients per month). Exercise
interventions also had a beneficial effect on the risk of falling (0.86, 0.75–0.99,
NNT 16) and the monthly fall rate (0.86, 0.73–1.01; 2.7).
Conclusions: Interventions to prevent falls in older adults are effective in reducing both the risk of falling
and the monthly rate of falling. The most effective intervention was a multifactorial falls risk assessment
and management program. Exercise programs were also effective in reducing the risk of falling.
Page 3 of 7
Evidence, Effectiveness, and Clinical Quality
©2014 South University
El-Khoury, F., Cassou, B., Charles, M-A., & Dargent-Molina, P. (2013). The effect
of fall prevention exercise programmes on fall induced injuries in community
dwelling older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised
controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 347, f6234. doi:10.1136/bmj.f6234
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether, and to what extent, fall prevention exercise interventions for older,
community-dwelling people are effective in preventing different types of fall-related injuries.
Data sources: Electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library,
Embase, and CINAHL) and reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews from inception to July
2013.
Study selection: Randomized controlled trials of fall prevention exercise interventions, targeting older
(>60 years), community-dwelling people and providing quantitative data on injurious falls, serious falls, or
fall-related fractures.
Data synthesis: On the basis of a systematic review of the case definitions used in the selected studies,
we grouped the definitions of injurious falls into more homogeneous categories to allow comparisons of
results across studies and the pooling of data. For each study, we extracted or calculated the rate ratio of
injurious falls. Depending on the available data, a given study could contribute data relevant to one or
more categories of injurious falls. A pooled rate ratio was estimated for each category of injurious falls on
the basis of random effects models.
Results: Seventeen trials involving 4,305 participants were eligible for meta-analysis.
Four categories of falls were identified: all injurious falls, falls resulting in medical care, severe injurious
falls, and falls resulting in fractures. Exercise had a significant effect in all categories, with pooled
estimates of the rate ratios of 0.63
(95% CI 0.51–0.77,10 trials) for all injurious falls, 0.70 (0.54–0.92, 8 trials) for falls resulting in medical
care, 0.57 (0.36–0.90, 7 trials) for
severe injurious falls, and 0.39 (0.22–0.66, 6 trials) for falls resulting in
fractures, but significant heterogeneity was observed among studies of all
injurious falls (I2 = 50%, P = 0.04).
Conclusions: Exercise programs designed to prevent falls in older adults
also seem to prevent injuries caused by falls, including the most severe ones.
Such programs also reduce the rate of falls leading to medical care.
Page 4 of 7
Evidence, Effectiveness, and Clinical Quality
©2014 South University
Hutton, L., Frame, R., Maggo, H., Shirakawa, H., Mulligan, H., Waters, D., & Hale, L. (2009). The
perceptions of physical activity in an elderly population at risk of falling: A focus group study. New
Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy, 37(2), 85–92.
Retrieved from http://physiotherapy.org.nz/assets/Professional-dev/Journal/2009-
July/2009JulMLRoberts
Abstract
This study aimed to develop an understanding of the perceptions that older
adults at risk of falls, and previously involved in organized group exercise, have
of physical activity. By identifying factors that these older adults feel help or
hinder their involvement in physical activity, measures can be taken to enable
optimal participation. Twenty participants aged 68–81 years, recruited from falls prevention exercise
classes, were allocated into five focus groups to discuss their experiences and views of physical activity.
Thematic analysis aligned participants’ views with the transtheoretical model of behavioral change.
Participants voiced a need for education and motivation to develop self-efficacy, to overcome barriers to
involvement and to acknowledge the associated benefits before they could commit to and maintain an
exercise program.
Actions to optimize participation included education about exercise requirements and the benefits to be
gained, improvement of motivation and self-efficacy through health professional support and by promotion
of peer-support initiatives, and continued improvements in quality of and accessibility to community
exercise programs, including the development of appropriate class environments with well-trained leaders
to ensure safety of and suitability for this population.
Page 5 of 7
Evidence, Effectiveness, and Clinical Quality
©2014 South University
Oh, D. H., Park, J. E., Lee, E. S., Oh, S. W., Cho, S. I., Jang, S. N., & Baik, H. W. (2012). Intensive
exercise reduces the fear of additional falls in elderly people: Findings from the Korea falls prevention
study. Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, 27(4), 417–425.
Background/Aims: Falls among older people are a major public health problem and may result in
fracture, medical complications that require hospitalization, and fear of additional falls. Given the
prevalence of falls and the impact of the fear of falling again, reducing the incidence of falls is important to
prevent additional falls. This study analyzed whether exercise programs decrease the fear of future falls
in elderly patients who have fallen previously.
Methods: A randomized controlled study was performed that included 65 elderly community-dwelling
subjects who had fallen in the previous year. Subjects were randomized into two groups, an exercise
group (EG, n = 36) and a control group
(CG, n = 29). The EG participated in three exercise sessions per week for 12
weeks. Muscle strength, balance, agility, flexibility, and muscular endurance were
measured at baseline and after 12 weeks.
Results: After the 12-week exercise program, the subjects in the EG demonstrated remarkable
improvement in their walking speeds, balance (p = 0.003), back strength (p = 0.08), lower extremity
strength (p = 0.004), and flexibility (p < 0.001). When asked whether they were afraid of falling, more
participants in the EG than in the CG responded “not at all” or “a little.”
Conclusions: The 12-week exercise program described here reduced the fear of
falling (p = 0.02). It also improved the balance, flexibility, and muscle strength of the participants and was
associated with improved quality of life.
Page 6 of 7
Evidence, Effectiveness, and Clinical Quality
©2014 South University
Sherrington, C., Whitney, J. C., Lord, S. R., Herbert, R. D., Cumming, R. G., &
Close, J. C. T. (2008). Effective exercise for the prevention of falls: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American geriatric Society, 56(12),
2234–2243. Retrieved from
http://www.lpsc.nsw.gov.au/pdf/sherrington%20syst%20rev%2008
Objectives: To determine the effects of exercise on falls prevention in older people and establish
whether particular trial characteristics or components of exercise programs are associated with larger
reductions in falls.
Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis—randomized controlled trials that
compared fall rates in older people who undertook exercise programs with fall rates in those who did not
exercise were included.
Setting: Older people.
Participants: General community and residential care.
Measurements: Fall rates.
Results: The pooled estimate of the effect of exercise was that it reduced the rate of falling by 17% (44
trials with 9,603 participants, RR 50.83, 95% CI 50.75–0.91, P = 0.001, I2 = 62%). The greatest relative
effects of exercise on fall rates (RR 50.58, 95% CI 50.48–0.69, 68% of between-study variability
explained) were seen in programs that included a combination of a higher total dose of exercise (450
hours over the trial period) and challenging balance exercises (exercises conducted while standing, in
which people aimed to stand with their feet closer together or on one leg, minimize use of their hands to
assist, and practice controlled movements of the center of mass) and did not include a walking program.
Conclusion: Exercise can prevent falls in older people. Greater relative effects are seen in programs that
include exercises that challenge balance, use a higher dose of exercise, and do not include a walking
program. Service providers can use these findings to design and implement exercise programs for falls
prevention.
http://www.lpsc.nsw.gov.au/pdf/sherrington%20syst%20rev%2008
Page 7 of 7
Evidence, Effectiveness, and Clinical Quality
©2014 South University
Taylor, D., Hale, L., Schluter, P., Waters, D. L., Binns, E. E., McCracken, H., . . . Wolf, S. L. (2012).
Effectiveness of tai chi as a community-based falls prevention intervention: A randomized controlled trial.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60(5), 841–848.
Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of tai chi and low-level exercise in reducing falls in older
adults; to determine whether mobility, balance, and lower
limb strength improves and whether higher doses of tai chi result in greater
effect.
Design: Randomized controlled trial.
Setting: Eleven sites throughout New Zealand.
Participants: Six hundred eighty-four community-residing older adults (mean
age 74.5; 73% female) with at least one fall risk factor.
Intervention: Tai chi once a week (TC1) (n = 233); tai chi twice a week (TC2) (n
= 220), or a low-level exercise program control group (LLE) (n = 231) for 20 weeks.
Measurements: The number of falls was ascertained according to monthly falls calendars. Mobility
(Timed-Up and-Go test), balance (step test), and lower limb
strength (chair stand test) were assessed.
Results: The adjusted IRR for falls was not significantly different between the TC1 and LLE groups (IRR
= 1.05, 95% CI = 0.83–1.33, P = .70) or between the TC2 and LLE groups (IRR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.68–
1.16, P = .37). Adjusted multilevel mixed-effects
Poisson regression showed a significant reduction in the logarithmic mean fall rate of
0.050 (95% CI = 0.064–0.037, P < .001) per month for all groups. Multilevel fixed-effect analyses
indicated improvements in balance (P < .001 right and left leg) and lower limb strength (P < .001) but not
mobility (P = .54) in all groups over time, with no differences between the groups (P = .37 [right leg], P =
.66 [left leg], P = .21, and P = .44, respectively).
Conclusion: There was no difference in falls rates between the groups, with falls reducing similarly (a
mean falls rate reduction of 58%) over the 17-month follow-up period. Strength and balance improved
similarly in all groups over time.
Evaluation Table
First Author
(Year)
Conceptual
Framework
Design/Method Sample &
Setting
Major
Variables
Studied (and
their
Definitions)
Measurement Data Analysis Findings Appraisal:
Worth to
Practice
For definitions of columns, see Appendix C in text below from which this template was created.
Melnyk, B., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2014). Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare A Guide to Best Practice (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA:
Wolters Kluwer.
SU_NSG7020_RCA_RandomizedClinTrials_Template
Rapid Critical Appraisal Randomized Clinical Trials
Numbered Studies
Unless otherwise specified, answers are Y=yes; N=no; U-unknown
1. Are the results of the study valid?
A. Were the subjects randomly assigned to the experimental
and control groups?
B. Was random assignment concealed from the individuals
who were first enrolling subjects into the study?
C. Were the subjects and providers blind to the study group?
D. Were reasons given to explain why subjects did not
complete the study?
E. Were the follow-up assessments conducted long enough
to fully study the effects of the intervention?
F. Were the subjects analyzed in the group to which they
were randomly assigned?
G. Was the control group appropriate?
H. Were the instruments used to measure the outcomes valid
and reliable?
I. Were the subjects in each of the groups similar on
demographic and baseline clinical variables?
2. What are the results?
A. How large is the intervention or treatment effect (number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), effect size, level of significance)?
Fill in (
B. How precise is the intervention or treatment (clinical intervention)?
Fill in (
3. Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
A. Were all clinically important outcomes measured?
B. What are the risks and benefits of the treatment?
Fill in (
C. Is the treatment feasible in my clinical setting?
D. What are my patient’s/family’s values and expectations for
the outcome that is trying to be prevented and the
treatment itself?
Fill in (
© Fineout-Overholt & Melnyk. 2005. This form may be used for educational and research purposes without permission.
SU_NSG7020_RCA_QualitativeEvidence
Rapid Critical Appraisal Qualitative Evidence
Numbered Studies
Unless otherwise specified, answers are Y=yes; N=no; U-unknown
1. Are the results of the study valid (i.e. trustworthy and credible?
a. How were study participants chosen?
Fill in (
b. How are accuracy and completeness of data assured?
Fill in
(
c. How plausible/believable are the results?
i) Are implications of the research stated?
1) May new insights increase sensitivity to others needs?
2) May understandings enhance situational competence?
d. What is the effect on the reader?
1) Are results plausible and believable?
2) Is the reader imaginatively drawn into the experience?
2. What were the results?
a. Does the research approach fit the purpose of the study?
i) How does the researcher identify the study approach?
1) Are language and concepts consistent with the
approach?
2) Are data collection and analysis techniques
appropriate?
ii) Is the significance/importance of the study explicit?
1) Does review of the literatures support a need for the
study?
2) What is the study’s potential contribution?
Fill in (
iii) Is the sampling strategy clear and guided by study
needs?
1) Does the researcher control selection of the
sample?
2) Do sample composition and size reflect study
needs?
b. Is the phenomenon (human experience) clearly identified?
i) Are data collection procedures clear?
1) Are sources and means of verifying data explicit?
2) Are researcher roles and activities explained?
ii) Are data analysis procedures described?
1) Does analysis guide direction of sampling and
when it ends?
2) Are data management processes described?
c. What are the reported results (description or interpretation)?
i) How are specific findings presented?
Fill in (
1) Is presentation logical, consistent, and easy to
follow?
2) Do quotes fit the findings they are intended to
illustrate?
ii) How are overall results presented?
1) Are meanings derived from data described in
context?
2) Does the writing effectively promote
understanding?
3. Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
a. Are the results relevant to persons in similar situations?
b. Are the results relevant to patient values and/or
circumstances?
c. How may the results be applied in clinical practice?
© Fineout-Overholt & Melnyk. 2005. This form may be used for educational and research purposes without permission.
SU_NSG7020_RCA_EBGuidelines_Template
Rapid Critical Appraisal Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines
Numbered Studies
Unless otherwise specified, answers are Y=yes; N=no; U-unknown
1. Are the results of the study valid?
1
. Who were the guideline developers?
Fill in (
2. Were the developers representative of key stakeholders in this specialty (interdisciplinary?)
3. Who funded the guideline development?
Fill in (
4. Were any of the guidelines developers funded researchers
of the reviewed studies?
5. Did the team have a valid development strategy?
6. Was an explicit (how decisions were made), sensible and
imperial process used to identify, select, and combine
evidence?
7. Did its developers carry out a comprehensive,
reproducible literature review within the pas 12 months of
its publication/revision?
8. Were all important options and outcomes considered?
9. Is each recommendation in the guideline tagged by the
level/strength of evidence upon which it is based and
linked with the scientific evidence?
10. Do the guidelines make explicit recommendations
(reflecting value judgments about outcomes)?
11. Has the guideline been subjected to peer review and
testing?
2. Applicability/Generalizability
12. Is the intent of use provided (e.g. national, regional,
local)?
13. Are the recommendations clinically relevant?
14. Will the recommendations help me in caring for my
patients?
15. Are the recommendations practical/feasible (e.g.
resources-people and equipment- available)?
16. Are the recommendations a major variation from current
practice?
17. Can the outcomes be measured through standard care?
© Fineout-Overholt & Melnyk. 2005. This form may be used for educational and research purposes without permission.
SU_NSG7020_RCA_CohortStudies_Template
Rapid Critical Appraisal Cohort Studies
Numbered Studies
Unless otherwise specified, answers are Y=yes; N=no; U-unknown
1. Are the results of the study valid?
a. Was there a representative and well-defined sample of
patients at a similar point in the course of the disease?
b. Was follow-up sufficiently long and complete?
c. Were objective and unbiased outcome criteria used?
d. Did the analysis adjust for important prognostic risk factors
and confounding variables?
2. What are the results?
a. What is the magnitude of the relationship between
predictors (i.e. prognostic indicators) and targeted
outcome?
Fill in (
b. How likely is the outcome event(s) in a specified period of
time?
Fill in (
c. How precise are the study estimates?
Fill in (
3. Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
a. Were the study patients similar to my own?
b. Will the results lead directly to selecting or avoiding
therapy?
c. Are the results useful for reassuring or counseling
patients?
© Fineout-Overholt & Melnyk. 2005. This form may be used for educational and research purposes without permission.
SU_NSG7020_RCA_Case-Control_Template
Rapid Critical Appraisal Cohort Case-Control Studies
Numbered Studies
Unless otherwise specified, answers are Y=yes; N=no; U-unknown
1. Are the results of the study valid?
a. How were the cases obtained?
b. Were appropriate controls selected?
c. Were data collection methods the same for the cases and
controls?
2. What are the results?
a. Is an estimate of effect given (do the numbers add up?)
b. Are there multiple comparisons of data?
c. Is there any possibility of bias or confounding?
3. Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
a. Were the study patients similar to my own?
b. How do the results compare with previous studies?
Fill in (
c. What are my patient’s/family’s values and expectations for
the outcomes?
Fill in (
© Fineout-Overholt & Melnyk. 2005. This form may be used for educational and research purposes without permission.
SU_NSG7020_How to use the Rapid Critical Appraisal
How to Use the Rapid Critical Appraisal (RCA) Checklists
Once you have completed your literature search, organize the studies by following these steps:
1. Alphabetize the list of studies according to the first author’s last name and initials of the first name.
2. Number the listings.
3. Identify each study’s type after the author’s name. This information can be found in the abstract in the “design” area or in the body of the article under “methods”. For example,
1. Beckwith, MM – RCA.
2. Chesmann, CR – Qualitative
4. Since multiple articles can be included on each RCA checklist, identify them by number.
5. Determine which checklist template is appropriate for the first article, then:
a) Double-click the header and enter the number of the study in the first box. Click “close” to exit the header area.
b) Answer the questions using the legend mentioned in the header for each item. Some questions require you to type in the answers. These are identified by either “Fill in” or “”.
c) Repeat the process to add additional studies.
SU_NSG7020_RCA_SystematicReviews_Template
Rapid Critical Appraisal Systematic Reviews of Clinical Intervention Studies
Numbered Studies
Unless otherwise specified, answers are Y=yes; N=no; U-unknown
1. Are the results of the study valid?
A. Are the studies contained in the review randomized controlled trials?
B. Does the review include a detailed description of the search strategy to find all relevant studies?
C. Does the review describe how validity of the individual
studies was assessed (e.g. methodological quality,
including the use of random assignments to study groups
and complete follow-up of the subjects)?
D. Were the results consistent across studies?
E. Were individual patient data or aggregate data used in the
analysis?
2. What are the results?
A. How large is the intervention or treatment effect (OR, RR,
effect size, level of significance)?
Fill in (
B. How precise is the intervention or treatment (CI)?
Fill in (
3. Will the results help me in caring for my patients?
A. Are my patients similar to the ones included in the review?
B. Is it feasible to implement the findings in my practice
setting?
C. Were all clinically important outcomes considered,
including risks and benefits of the treatment?
D. What is my clinical assessment of the patient and are
there any contraindications or circumstances that would
inhibit me from implementing the treatment?
E. What are my patient’s and his or her family’s references
and values about the treatment that is under
consideration?
© Fineout-Overholt & Melnyk. 2005. This form may be used for educational and research purposes without permission.
Week 4
|
Week Four Submission Project:
Click on the link in the week 4 submission project section to reveal 7 References and abstracts related to falls prevention. For this assignment choose only those articles from the provided reference list that are quantitative studies. Must include a title page and a reference page. Complete RCA checklists for the quantitative studies. You can add the same type of studies to one checklist. Hint: (There are only two types of quantitative studies so you will only have to submit two types of RCA checklists and there is only one qualitative study). Next complete the evaluation table for only the quantitative studies. Submit title page, RCA checklists and evaluation table as one paper. |
|||||
|
Total points
|
Your Points |
||||
|
· Complete RCAs of the quantitative studies only from the · The RCA checklists are provided in the submissions project section.
|
3 5 |
35 |
|||
|
Complete an evaluation table for the quantitative studies. See example for evaluation table in the appendix of Melnyk & Fineout- Overholt (2015) |
50 |
5 0 |
|||
|
Title page |
5 | 5 | |||
|
Reference page |
10 |
10 |
|||
|
Comments: |
|||||
|
100 |
100 /100 |
Week 4
|
Week Four Submission Project:
Click on the link in the week 4 submission project section to reveal 7 References and abstracts related to falls prevention. For this assignment choose only those articles from the provided reference list that are quantitative studies. Must include a title page and a reference page. Complete RCA checklists for the quantitative studies. You can add the same type of studies to one checklist. Hint: (There are only two types of quantitative studies so you will only have to submit two types of RCA checklists and there is only one qualitative study). Next complete the evaluation table for only the quantitative studies. Submit title page, RCA checklists and evaluation table as one paper. |
|||||
|
Total points
|
Your Points |
||||
|
· Complete RCAs of the quantitative studies only from the · The RCA checklists are provided in the submissions project section.
|
3 5 |
35 |
|||
|
Complete an evaluation table for the quantitative studies. See example for evaluation table in the appendix of Melnyk & Fineout- Overholt (2015) |
50 |
5 0 |
|||
|
Title page |
5 | 5 | |||
|
Reference page |
10 |
10 |
|||
|
Comments: |
|||||
|
100 |
100 /100 |
