Course Projects and Grading:

1. Capstone Project/ EBP Paper: conduct a systematic review that contributes to evidence-based practice. Includes appraisal, analysis and synthesis of evidence, results, and recommendations. (70% of grade).

a. Synthesis of Studies:40%

b. Final Paper:30%

INDIVIDUAL EBP PROJECT (40%)

Purpose: To build on your individual evidence-based practice project.

Select a health care topic for an evidence-based practice project. The topic has to be approved by the Professor. Identify and describe your project and appraise the evidence on the topic using the Cochrane Collaboration fundamentals of evidence-based healthcare concepts (posted on BB) and Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt rating of evidence. Each student should appraise a total of 5 research studies (2 for synthesis paper #1 and 3 for synthesis paper # 2) evidence related to the topic chosen. Two tables should be submitted for each synthesis. The 2 evidence (Synthesis paper # 1) will be put together with the set of another 3 (Synthesis paper # 2) at the end to be able to come up with one final paper and PP presentation.

(The final paper will be presented at the end of the class but will be a work in progress from the start. Synthesis 1 and 2 (tables) will be plugged-in to the final paper in the end, BUT the tables will be submitted on the due dates indicated in the syllabus).

GUIDELINE FOR CAPSTONE/ EVIDENCE-BASED PROJECT

Abstract: should be APA style of 250 words

Background: helps set the rationale for the review, and should explain why the questions being asked are important. It should be presented in a fashion that is understandable to the users of the health care under investigation, and should be concise.

1. description of the condition

1. description of the intervention

1. how the intervention might work

1. why is it important to do this review?

Objectives: should begin with a precise statement of the primary aim of the review, including the intervention(s) reviewed and the targeted problem. This might be followed by a series of specific objectives relating to different participant groups, different comparisons of interventions or different outcome measures.

Methods: The Methods section in a review should mention that the Cochrane Collaboration fundamentals of evidence-based healthcare concepts (as the methodology for the review) and Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (for rating of evidence) were used. The methodology section should be written in the past tense and should describe what was done to obtain the results and conclusions of the current version of the review. You need 10 reports or evidence that relate to your clinical project topic.

Criteria for considering studies for the review:

1. types of studies

1. types of participants; key facilitators

1. types of interventions

1. types of outcomes

Searching strategy for identification of studies:

1. electronic sources

1. other sources

The methods for data collection and analysis should also be described here:

1. selection of studies

1. data extraction and management

Results: The results sections begin with a description of the studies identified by the review, which should start with a summary of the inclusion of studies.

Description of studies

1. results of the search (in a table)

1a. Included Studies (a) title, author and reference; (b) design and assessment of

quality of studies: objectives, research design, validity: selection, attrition,

performance and detection biases/limitations and reliability; (c) sample size,

recruitment and selection, sampling method, allocation to groups; (d)

interventions; (e) outcomes)

1b. Grading of Evidence (in a table)

The results section should include a summary of the main findings on the effects of

the interventions studied in the review. The section should directly address the

objectives of the review rather than list the findings of the included studies in turn.

These 2 tables are also Synthesis 1 (first 2 evidence) and 2 (2nd set of 3 evidence) papers that will be included later in the final paper and will also be presented at the end of the semester.

Conclusions: The primary purpose of the review should be to present information, rather than to offer advice.

Implications for practice

Implications for research

References

Tables and figures (if any aside from Table 1 and 2)

SYNTHESIS paper #1 (20%) and paper #2 (20%)

PAPER GRADING CRITERIA

Description of assessment of study quality: objectives, research design(s); validity: selection, attrition, performance and detection biases/limitations; reliability

30%

Description of sample size, recruitment and selection, sampling method, power analysis, allocation to groups 20%

Description of intervention (s) 20%

Description of actual outcomes including statistical findings 20%

Grading of level of evidence 10%

TOTAL: 100%

CAPSTONE/EBP PROJECT FINAL PAPER GRADING CRITERIA (30%)

Abstract (5%)

Background (10%)

1. Description of the condition

2. Description of the intervention

3. How the intervention might work

4. Why is it important to do this review?

Objectives (5%)

Methods (25%)

Criteria for considering studies for the review: (10)

1. Types of studies

2. Types of participants; key facilitators

3. types of interventions

4. types of outcomes

Searching strategy for identification of studies: (5)

1. electronic sources

2. other sources

Methods for data collection and analysis: (10)

1. Selection of studies

2. Data extraction and management

Results (25%)

Description of studies:

1. Results of the search (15)

1a. Table 1: Included Studies: (a) title, author and reference; (b) assessment of

study quality: objectives, research design, validity: selection, attrition,

performance and detection biases/limitations; reliability; (c) sample size,

recruitment and selection, sampling method, allocation to groups; (d)

interventions; (e) outcomes (10)

1b. Table 2: Grading of Evidence (10)

Conclusions (5%)

Implications for Practice and Research (5%)

APA Style (10%)

Total: 100%

CAPSTONE/ EBP PROJECT PRESENTATION GRADING CRITERIA (10%)

Background: 10%

(Why the question is being asked? intervention and comparison, expected outcomes)

Objectives: 5%

Methods: 30%

(Inclusion and exclusion criteria, searching, selection of studies, data extraction and management, types of studies, types of participants; key facilitators, types of interventions, types of outcomes

Presentation of Findings/Results: 20%

(Description of studies, search results, Table 1 and 2)

Discussion: 20% (Summary of main results, overall completeness and applicability of evidence, quality of the evidence, potential biases in the review process, strengths and weaknesses, lessons learned, recommendations)

Conclusion and Implications: 10%

Mode and quality of presentation; time frame and ability to answer question: 5%

TOTAL: 100%