NURS 8201 Week 11 Discussion: Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Inform Evidence-Based Practice

NURS 8201 Week 11 Discussion: Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Inform Evidence-Based Practice

NURS 8201 Week 11 Discussion: Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Inform Evidence-Based Practice

The mixed-method encompasses both qualitative and quantitative methods. The mixed-method has become common in recent times due to the growing complexity of nursing (Campbell, Tam-Tham, Dhaliwal, Manns, Hemmelgarn, Sanmartin, & King-Shier, 2017). An example of a mixed-method can be demonstrated by research conducted to determine the stress levels of nurses in a psychiatric ward. The research would first involve a quantitative approach, which will entail the collection of data based on the level of stress of the participants. A 5-point Likert scale could be deployed to measure the level of stress. The data could then be analyzed using quantitative statistical methods such as mean, mode, standard deviation, and t-test to determine whether the stress levels are normal. Once the quantitative study has been completed, a qualitative study could be carried out to assess nurses’ experiences in the psychiatric ward that could result in escalated stress levels. Data could be collected using interviews. The data analysis could involve determining topics and drawing relevant themes (Campbell et al., 2017).

The mixed method has several advantages in research. First, the research can quantify data and further explore other relevant themes that a quantitative study cannot determine. This results in better enrichment of evidence and a comprehensive understanding of the research question (Oliveira, Magalhães, & MisueMatsuda, 2018). The other advantage is that participants can give more details in a mixed-method hence more accurate research. The mixed method also has several limitations. The first limitation is its complexity. The method requires thorough training to ensure researchers conduct the exercise effectively. The other limitation is that it might require more resources. Additional personnel and lengthy research periods could be witnessed in the mixed method compared to the single methods. A multidisciplinary team might also be required to conduct the research. The multidisciplinary team might not be readily available.

Chronic pain affects millions of Americans. Diagnosing, treating, and understanding chronic pain creates many challenges for healthcare. Is the challenge on how  to properly diagnose and manage a patient’s pain? Or is the challenge on whether or not to prescribe pain medications given the concerns with addiction as a result of the opioid epidemic?

Consider the questions posed above. How might the use of qualitative and quantitative methods serve to provide answers for researchers regarding the challenges associated with chronic pain? What can qualitative data provide that quantitative data cannot, and vice versa? How might a mixed methods approach fill in the gaps to provide a clearer understanding of the problem and potential solutions?

For this Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Inform Evidence-Based Practice Discussion, reflect on an issue or problem in healthcare that may benefit from a mixed methods approach. Think about the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods and designs, as well as how these two methods might work well together. Consider how a mixed methods approach supports evidence-based practice.

Also Check Out: NURS 8201 Week 10 Assignment 3: Qualitative Research Approaches to Support Nursing Practice

To Prepare:

• Review the Learning Resources for this week and consider the differences between qualitative and quantitative research designs and methods.
• Consider an example of a topic or issue in nursing in which both qualitative and quantitative research approaches might be necessary,
• Reflect on how a mixed methods approach lends itself to evidence-based practice.

By Day 3 of Week 11

Post an explanation of when it might be most useful to use both qualitative and quantitative approaches or mixed methods to support a research design. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain whether a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches are used in systematic reviews to support evidence-based practice. Be specific.

By Day 6 of Week 11

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:

• Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
• Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
• Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
• Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
• Suggest an alternative perspective based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
• Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Get nursing paper help for Me

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 11 Discussion Rubric

Top nursing paper writers on hand to assist you with assignment : NURS 8201 Week 11 Discussion: Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Inform Evidence-Based Practice

Post by Day 3 of Week 11 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 11

To Participate in this Discussion:

Week 11 Discussion

Name: NURS_8201_Week11_Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Inform Evidence-Based Practice Discussion_Rubric

		Excellent 90–100	Good 80–89	Fair 70–79	Poor 0–69
Main Posting: Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.		40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources.	35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references.	31 (31%) – 34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references.	0 (0%) – 30 (30%) Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references.
Main Posting: Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting: Timely and full participation		9 (9%) – 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.		9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response: Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%) is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
First Response: Timely and full participation		5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.		9 (9%) – 9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.	8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.	7 (7%) – 7 (7%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.	0 (0%) – 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response: Writing		6 (6%) – 6 (6%) is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response: Timely and full participation		5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date.	4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date.	3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Posts by due date.	0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_8201_Week11_Discussion_Rubric