HLT 362 V GCU Quiz 11. When a researcher uses a random sam

HLT 362 V GCU
Quiz 1
1. When a researcher uses a random sample of 400 to make
conclusions about a larger population, this is an example of:
· Descriptive statistics
· Demographics
· Inferential statistics
· Dependent variables
2. If a study is comparing number of falls by age, age is
considered what type of variable?
· Interval
· Ordinal
· Ratio
· Nominal
3. Validity is:
· A data item, such as characteristics, numbers, properties, or
quantities, that can be measured or counted.
· The extent to which an idea or measurement is well-founded
and an accurate representation of the real world.

· A measurement level with equal distances between the points
and a zero-starting point.
· Raw unorganized information from which conclusions can be
made.
4. Data is defined as:
· The extent to which an idea or measurement is well-founded
and an accurate representation of the real world.
· A measurement level with equal distances between the points
and a zero-starting point.
· Raw unorganized information from which conclusions can be
made.
5. The average of the collected data is known as:
· Mean
· Median
· Variance
· Range
6. The experimental or predictor variable is an example of:
· Extraneous variable
· Dependent variable

· Independent variable
· Nominal data
7. Level of measurement that defines the relationship between
things and assigns an order or ranking to each thing is known
as:
· Interval
· Ordinal
· Ratio
· Nominal
8. A variable is considered:
· A component of mathematics that looks at gathered data.
· Statistics designed to allow the researcher to infer
characteristics regarding a population from sample population.
· External and internal influences within a study that can affect
the validity and reliability of the outcomes.
9. External and internal influences within a study that can
affect the validity and reliability of outcomes is called:
· Continuous variables
· Demographics

· Bias
· Standard deviation
10. The subset of the population to be studied is called:
· Sample
· Variable
· Population
· Demographic
Put the below in your own words into 1-2 paragraphs for the
main conclusion and 1-2 paragraphs for the clinical application
Main conclusion:
The following is one example of a main conclusion and clinical
applicability to assist you in formulating your take home
message for the dissemination assignment. The details in these
descriptions are intentionally detailed for your consideration.
Do not include this level of detail in the dissemination
assignment.
HPV study:
The Healthy People 2020 HPV vaccination goal of 80% of all
United States adolescents[KG1] is not being met with current
practices (citation). With insufficient vaccination, reduction in
HPV-related disease and cancers will not be optimized
(citation). A clinical practice guideline and two research

articles were appraised to evaluate the effectiveness of
strategies to improve HPV vaccination. Among these, the
evidence is insufficient and rates weak to moderate in its
quality (citation 1; citation 2; citation 3, appraisal tool 1,
appraisal tool 2, appraisal tool 3).
Using criteria from the AGREE II guideline appraisal tool, the
clinical practice guideline rated low to moderate in quality
(citation 1; citation 2). This guideline failed to rate the
supplemental evidence using the GRADE criteria, included
many studies funded by vaccine manufacturers as well as
potential conflicts of interest among the authors, and did not
present specific strategies to increase vaccine[KG2] [KG3]
uptake. The guideline questions, methods and search strategies
were strong.
The moderately-rated randomized controlled trial studied the
use of digital information to improve HPV vaccination rates. It
had a strong cluster randomized design with blinding of
participants, but suffered from serious methodological concerns
(citation 1, citation 2). Due to logistical barriers, only 25% of
eligible patients were given the intervention. Out of 1596
participants, only 141 received the enhanced education.
However, among these, vaccine uptake improved by three times
compared with the control group. Additionally, the potential for
bias and over inflation of the effect size could have occurred via
several avenues: selection bias by the medical assistants,
researcher bias by knowing which patients received the
intervention, and[KG4] conflicts of interest including researcher
affiliation with vaccine and technology manufacturers.
The third article rated strong, a qualitative study that aimed to
elicit understanding of the reasons mothers accepted or denied
HPV vaccination for their adolescent children (citation 1,
citation 2). Strengths included strong theoretical constructs,
ample participant quotations imparting a felt message of each of
the qualitative themes, and robust methods, analysis, and
results. Weaknesses included questionable saturation of themes,
lack of reporting of the influence of the researcher on the

researcher, and omission of a specific qualitative method and
philosophy. The results imply that clinicians may be able to
increase HPV vaccination[KG5] [KG6] rates through addressing
knowledge deficits, creating urgency, and reducing missed
opportunities and logistical barriers. Qualitative research rates
low on the hierarchy of evidence, as it does not study
interventions, but offers useful guidance in understanding
participant perspectives, which could guide targeted
conversations that could improve clinical outcomes (citation).
In summary, this limited collection of evidence is not strong
enough to support implementing the results into clinical
practice without an exhaustive review of strategies to improve
HPV vaccine rates among diverse populations and settings.
Intuitively, it is[KG7] likely the evidence will support targeted
education efforts with clinician encouragement, as well as
addressing caregiver barriers to improve HPV vaccination.
Clinical Application (Example 1)
The advanced[KG8] -practice nurse has been charged with a
quality improvement project to reach the Healthy People 2020
goal of 80% HPV vaccination for children (citation) at the
clinic. Although the limited evidence from the literature
appraisal and synthesis is not sufficient to implement a wide-
scale intervention project, the APRN has received support to
continue with the necessary steps to implement an evidence-
based project to increase vaccine uptake. The APRN has shared
the results that limited and imperfect evidence[KG9] supports
HPV vaccine uptake. This evidence includes targeted
educational interventions, increased clinician support
and sense of urgency, working through caregiver barriers, and
reducing missed opportunities (citation 1, 2, 3).
Before implementation of a particular strategy, the APRN will
complete an exhaustive review of the evidence on strategies to
improve vaccine uptake. The APRN is intrigued by the results
from a randomized controlled trial showing digital education
substantially increased[KG10] HPV vaccination and would like
to implement this strategy in the clinic. The APRN submitted a

proposal and received a substantial grant to purchase multi -
purpose electronic tablets that will contain a variety of
evidence-based interactive and educational products, including
HPV vaccination. The grant included a pre-intervention phase to
resolve barriers that emerged from the literature including
logistical, cultural, moral and/or religious, and cost (citation 1,
2, 3). Specific interventions for caregivers who are reluctant to
vaccinate will be addressed. With implementation, caregivers
and their children will be offered opportunities to express the
support or concerns about vaccination within a shared-decision
making model, in an environment of respect, using open-ended
questions (citation). Results will be measured, and ongoing
plans to improve and sustain the project goals, as well as
disseminate the results will occur (citation[KG11] [KG12] ).
Example 2:
The limited body of evidence suggests that counseling on the
importance[KG13] of starting an HPV vaccination series for
adolescent males who are not sexually active is essential.
Through the use of technology to shift family attitudes toward
the HPV vaccine as well as identifying health behavior intention
and action trends, the clinician could significantly
increase[KG14] HPV vaccination uptake, thereby decreasing
HPV-related illnesses and cancer (citation 1, citation 2). If the
parent was experiencing high decisional conflict, the
identification of specific health intention and behavior beliefs
through discussion may aid in positive health behavior action
being taken through implementation of individualized
educational interventions (citation). Essentially, this would
enable the clinician to better equip oneself with tools and
technology that would more adequately address specific
thinking and behavioral patterns related to vaccination
(citation). The plan of care needs to be individualized with
consideration of familial[KG15] values and beliefs especially
regarding the sensitive subject of adolescence and sexual
activity (citation).
Although each family is allowed the right to self-determination

regarding health decisions and choices, it is essential that an
informed education is provided through various pathways for
individual understanding to be achieved (citation). Starting an
open conversation with the patient and family would allow for
shared decision making to occur while allowing for the clinician
to educate appropriately given the current evidence. An ongoing
literature review will assure[KG16] that the best and most
complete evidence base will continue to inform and structure
future care (Citation).
[KG1]Brief introduction grounds the reader and outlines the
purpose. Citations include statistical support, the three articles,
and the three appraisal tools.
[KG2]These are only a few of the strengths and weaknesses
from the AGREE II tool. You may find others are more
important. The writer relates the guideline back to the topic
(vaccine uptake strategies), not irrelevant information that does
not apply to the PICO or the clinical scenario. The citations are
the AGREE II tool and the guideline. The consensus is that thi s
guideline was poorly constructed, and did not find it had much
to offer in answering the PICO.
[KG3]
[KG4]You may have a different takeaway from this article. It is
important to note some of the most important strengths and
weaknesses. The consensus is that this article rated moderate.
Some of you thought it was poorly constructed and would not
use it to inform care. That is ok, provided you support those
views using appraisal concepts.
[KG5]Most of you agreed on the appraisal points from this
article. The main area of difficulty was deciding how to use the
results to guide care – that seems to be the hardest part of
implementing qualitative research.
[KG6]
[KG7]Summary statement wraps up the main conclusion.
Always important to state more literature review is needed
(NOT necessarily more research – we don’t know at this point
until an exhaustive review is complete).

[KG8]This example takes a system-wide approach to solving the
clinical problem, and it works very well.
[KG9]There is no discussion of the studies or the results, or the
appraisal points in this section
But the key takeaways are included in the plan.
[KG10]The project includes the steps of EBP but sticks to a
succinct application for this project without going into a lot of
detail.
[KG11]
[KG12]
[KG13]This example pertains to the case scenario, and it also
works very well. Note there is “limited” evidence
[KG14]Nice integration of the CPG, the RCT, and the qual.
Study here.
[KG15]ARPN philosophy of respect, individualism, and holistic
principles are appreciated
[KG16]More incorporation of the qual. Study.

HLT 362 V GCU Quiz 11. When a researcher uses a random sam

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie HLT 362 V GCU Quiz 11. When a researcher uses a random sam

Ähnlich wie HLT 362 V GCU Quiz 11. When a researcher uses a random sam (20)

Mehr von SusanaFurman449

Mehr von SusanaFurman449 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

HLT 362 V GCU Quiz 11. When a researcher uses a random sam