For part ( P):Add more information including the all criteria of participants that were in study, total participants, age , diagnosis, and inclusion criteria of participants
For part (C): if there mention any comparing treatment;; Add what kind of treatment that used to comparing with the results of basic treatment (mindfulness training) and what the procedures they following to comparing with basic treatment and what the goals of comparing treatment all information about comparing treatment pleas add
For part (O): add alll the outcomes from the treatment in all aspects of intervention and all the results , with explain in proper and rich way, also explained the results of comparing treatment with basic if was mention , explained how it
For part (I): Add all information about the intervention and the procedures of intervention, how many hours , how many days , and the goals for the intervention and is there any kind of other intervention used to comparing with basic intervention or no , and all the benefits of intervention please add all information
Authors: put it as Help write my thesis – APA style reference Not as normal name !! Sources of evidence is not correct read the figure and determine again what the source they used in study Format: how they conduct the intervention or study ( individuals, groups, family, online, self help ) how they apply on participants Participants add alll the criteria of the participants , total of participants, age, how many gender from femal , male , all inclusion criteria. Treating clinicians : what the clinicians investigating to conduct the treatment if they report such as( psychologists, nurses, psychiatric, etc…… Procedures : add all the processes they followed to conduct the intervention how many days, how many hours etc………
Summary: focus more in data results number not only mention words the statistics results it’s important
Please read the information below to guide you to answer in proper way , please make sure you follow to be ( critical appraisal)!!!!
Question 1: Are the results of the study valid? Validity refers to the accuracy of the results. In other words, this question asks, “How accurate are the results of the study and can the results be trusted?” To answer this question, we need to find some answers. First, we need to consider how study participants were chosen. Were they selected at random or by some other method? Were measures taken to decrease biased results based on how participants were selected? . Next, we need to consider the accuracy and completeness of the data. Did the authors of the study use a measure or instrument (such as a survey tool) that was validated and reliable?. Finally, we need to determine what data was included and what data was excluded. Does it appear that the researchers took reasonable steps to assure accurate and complete data? Reliability refers to dependability and consistency—do we know the results are an accurate representation of what is being measured? Question 2: What were the results and are they important? Essentially, this question asks, “What did the study find and is it meaningful?” For the answers to some of these questions, you’ll need to understand statistics so we’ll run through statistical terminology. One thing you’ll often see in the literature is a reference to the “treatment effect.” We need to understand effect size and level of significance to understand treatment effect. Effect Size Effect size refers to the strength of the relationship between the variables. The greater the effect size, the stronger the relationship between the two. Generally, effect size is designated as small (.2), medium (.5), and large (.8). The higher the effect size, the greater the relationship between variables. For example, the relationship between smoking and lung cancer would have a large effect size because they have a very strong relationship. The effect size between eating dark chocolate and headaches would be relatively small, if a relationship exists at all. Level of Significance The level of significance deals with how likely something is to happen or not happen. In studies, it is often depicted by the p-value, or probability. The smaller the p-value, the less likely it is that the reported results happened because of a fluke or chance. Therefore, you can feel more confident in the significance of the data you are reviewing. Most studies use a p-value of .05 as “clinically significant.” For example, a p-value of .05 means that there is less than a 5% chance, or 5 times out of 100, that the reported occurrence happened by chance or “fluke.” A p-value of .01 means that there is less than a 1% chance, or 1 times out of 100, that the reported occurrence happened by chance. However, even with extremely small p-values, such as .001 (1 times out of 1000), we still cannot say that our results prove anything. It’s also important to consider how plausible and believable the results were. Do the results of the study seem likely? Do they appear that they could be reproduced? If claims seem far-fetched, it may warrant searching for similar studies to determine if similar results were achieved—otherwise, the intervention may not be beneficial and may have the potential to harm your patient
Question 3 that will help me care for my patient in this setting? This question is also known as clinical significance. Just because something has statistical significance doesn’t mean that it will be clinically significant to your patient population. In determining if it is clinically significant to your patient, you need to consider the following questions, many of which rely on your clinical expertise and understanding of your patient population. Do the results apply to my patient? First, you need to assess whether your patient or patient population is similar to those in the study. There are likely to be differences, but you must determine what the important differences are and if it will impact the effectiveness on your patient population. For example, say you reviewed a study that demonstrated weekly group education classes were highly effective in helping control blood sugar fluctuations in patients newly diagnosed with type I diabetes. When asking how the results apply to your patient population, you first determine that your clients are also newly diagnosed with type I diabetes. If they aren’t newly diagnosed, the intervention may not produce the same results as those experienced by study participants. When you look at how the populations differ, you note that your patient population is located in a rural setting with limited access to care and that the study population in the published study was located in a major metropolitan city. The results of the original study may be important and meaningful, but due to some differences, it may not help you care for the patients in your setting. What are the risks and benefits of treatment? In some studies, researchers are able to carefully monitor and control the risks. In clinical settings, we may not be able to provide monitoring or control for side effects in the same manner as the original study, and the risks may outweigh the benefits for your patient population. Is the treatment feasible in my clinical setting? Using our type 1 diabetes example, the study may have found that weekly educational sessions helped to control blood sugar levels, but given the financial costs and available resources at your facility, you may not be able to offer weekly group education sessions. What are my patient’s values and expectations for the outcome? Using our same example, if you have a patient who is independent and introverted, group education sessions may not be consistent with these values, even though the intervention was shown to be effective. If your patient is unlikely to attend, it won’t be a helpful intervention for them.
———–
For portion (P), include extra information such as the total number of participants, their ages, diagnoses, and inclusion criteria.
Part (C): if any contrasting treatment is mentioned; Add what kind of treatment was used to compare with the results of basic treatment (mindfulness training), what processes were utilized to compare with basic treatment, and what the goals of comparing treatment were.
Part (O): Include all of the outcomes from the treatment in all parts of intervention and all of the results, with proper and rich explanations, as well as the results of comparing therapy with basic if mentioned, and explain how it was done.
Part (I): Include all relevant information concerning the intervention.
