Literature Review and Critical Appraisal

Answer

Literature Review and Critical Appraisal    

1. Nordstein, T. Fermann & E. Severrinson (2018 pp25). These sources are primary empirical because the authors conducted observation and experiments to compile their findings on effectiveness and application of EBP in nursing disciplines (Fidahic et al., 2020). Further review to the journal reveals that World Health Organization (WHO) 2015 (pp3-4) and European Union (EU),2005/2013 are primary sources that are not empirical. The reason for classification to non-empirical sources is that they are direct speeches from individuals passed without and experiment or measures. The journal Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice written by B.M Melnyk & E. Fineout-Overholt (2019 pp32)) is a secondary source providing comment on applications of EBP.

Are the references current?

References used in the journal varies from current to past sources according to the list provided and their categories. From the list provided, the past source used is R. Gomms’ Social Research Methodology: A Critical Introduction published in 2008 (pp6). Additionally, the statements contained in the article presented by World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Union (EU) were commented on 2013 and 2015 (pp11-13). Given the changing dynamic and health practices, the study ought to have used articles that are not more than three years old.

Are relevant studies identified and described?

The information provided in the journal is relevant in addressing issues facing credibility of EBP. Criteria for making conclusions on the relevance of information provided was arrived at by classification of different sources used to support the study. Under this classification, three types of information namely primary, secondary and tertiary information sources are used. The primary information contained in the journal tables and health legislation is relevant to EBP. Secondary information contained in the article is presented by article analysis and reports on use of EBP and how they have been applied in six study counties. Other relevance is provided from teaching textbook as a tertiary source to support findings in the journal.

Are relevant theories identified and described?

Sources used to validate information contained in the journal applied various theories to keep in check the entire study process. Review to the article to identify theories used in the study applied a topology for understanding theoretical applications and uses. The first step was determining who the agent is in terms of intentional and non-intentional followed by what is done by the agent. The third move was evaluation of agent intention and decision to support the theory and the concern where the affected individuals are found. Theoretical identification criteria also analyzed when the theory was used to understand teaching and application of EBP.

Are relevant landmark studies described?

Insight to the auricle shows that sources by B.M. Melnyk E. Fineout-Overholt (2019 pp62) and P. Lahtinen, h. Leino & L. Salminem, (2014 pp11), have been used repeatedly in the journal. These articles can thus be classified as landmark studies following repeated use. The review to the journal also indicates that there is critics to relevant studies made on the teaching and applications of EBP among nurses (Skela-Savič et al., 2020). In the introductory section of the journal, illustration of critique is presented by statement by Melnyk and Overholt that “…...EBP knowledge and skills among nursing students have been described extensively” while in the following statement, a critic that: “…...nurses are not properly trained to apply EBP and do not use it often enough.” provided by a number of authors is illustrated.

Are the sources paraphrased to promote the flow of the content presented or are there too many direct quotes?

The article presents a smooth flow of ideas as expressed by authors with exception in a few direct quotes used mostly for WHO and EU (2013/15 p2-3) The article presents the statement “The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) framework specifies expected learning outcomes for bachelor's degree candidates…” as illustration for EBP teaching guidelines presented by P. Lahtine, H. Leino-Kilpi and L. Saliminen (2014 pp33-35), and in further review, J D. Dols, L. R. Munoz, S. S. Martinez, N. Mathers, P. S. Miller, T. A. Pomerleau, A. Timmons & S. White (2017 pp60) et al article is paraphrased using the statement “…. not all faculties have knowledge in EBP or quality improvement” describe knowledge level and distribution in learning institutions. The last paraphrased statement as provided by article authors is “EBP e-Toolkit Project seeks to promote and harmonize the teaching and learning of EBP in the European nursing curricula” Presented by M. Ruzafa-Martines, L. Lopez-Iborra, D. Armero Barranco and A. J Ramos-Morcillo, (2016 p5-7) to describe setting and sample collection for the study.

Is the current knowledge about the research problem described?

The current understanding in nursing practices holds that there is an existing gap in nursing decisions and patient satisfaction levels. With reference to the article, the knowledge provided is current as it is presented by different support sources, studies and debates circulating in different regions. This conclusion is arrived at by reviewing literature review used and understanding emerging health teaching practices and needs.
Does the literature review identify the gap(s) in the knowledge base that provides a basis for the study conducted?

Global nursing institutions recommends application of EBP for promoting competency in practices as reviewed in the literature review. However, effective application of EBP is still a major problem among most European countries (Malik et al., 2015). Illustration of this knowledge gap is present by the authors by the statement “There is no European framework for EBP competency and no guidelines for EBP teaching methods which is why a consensus should be reached among European countries on this issue” knowledge gap therefore exists in laying best guides for teaching EBP.

Is the literature review clearly organized, logically developed, and concisely written?

                The literature review is clearly organized and presents flow of thought to communicate the main ideas. Initial focus and goals of EBP are provided followed by illustration of existing gaps to indicate concise thought and ideas.

Does the literature review logically build a case for the study being reported?

Generally, inclusion of different sources helps in building the major theme of the journal. The reader is therefore able to understand flow of thoughts in the article. The article is therefore viewed as a primary empirical source with adequate analysis of a problem in the case presented.