NUR 550 Benchmark -Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review

NUR 550 Benchmark -Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review

NUR 550 Benchmark -Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review

The Coronavirus disease of 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic remains one of the most dreaded infectious diseases that the world ever witnessed. The condition led to diverse measures to control and stop its spread and adverse effects like mortality and severe disease. One of the initiative that the World Health Organization (WHO) in collaboration and cooperation with different stakeholders used was the development of a vaccine and offering shots to people to protect them against the condition. However, effective uptake of vaccines was hampered due to several reasons, key among them lack of awareness and information about these inoculations (Kaim et al., 2021). Health education about Covid-19 for the general population is essential in raising awareness and information on the up take of the vaccines to deal with the health issue.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) requires one to develop a PICOT question to tackle the identified health issue, in this case increased public health education to improve vaccinations against Covid-19. The PICOT question for the project is:  Among the general population and individuals at risk of Covid-19 (P) will the use of health education about covid-19 vaccination plans (I) as compared to no intervention (C) lead to a 50% increased willingness to take covid-19 vaccine (O) within six months (T)? The purpose of this paper is to review articles selected for the EBP project on health education to increase up take of Covid-19 vaccines in the general population.

Search methods

The search of existing literature focused on getting peer-reviewed articles that support the PICOT question through known or relevant databases, use of related key terms like Covid-19 pandemic, use of health education for vaccine up take, and role of nurses. The literature review search focused on different databases that included PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and MEDLINE as well as Google Scholar. The paper also employed the key terms and words from the PICOT question to improve the search and limit the possible articles that addressed the issue of public health education related to increasing up take of Covid-19 jabs in the general population. The strategy also entailed a keen focus on using systematic reviews and meta-analyses as highest levels of evidence. The search also narrowed down to articles produced in English without any translation. The key words aligned the search to the PICOT question. The other aspects of the search were to filter the articles using the CRAAP approach where articles were evaluated based on the currency, accuracy, authority, and purpose to the selected issue.

Synthesis of Literature Based on the Articles

The first article by Motta et al. (2020) discusses the need for effective health communication to encourage the public to take the Covid-19 vaccine. The aim of the study was to determine the effectiveness of educational messages in increasing the willingness to have Covid-19 vaccine. The study integrated 7064 individuals to determine if effective messaging from public health entities improved vaccine up take. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows the effectiveness of the proposed intervention, health education, to encourage and increase public’s up take of the Covid-19 jab.

The second article by James (2021) focuses on the effects of persuasive messaging in increasing up take of Covid-19 vaccines. The authors contend that low up take of vaccines will prolong the pandemic. However, a core aspect of convincing the public to take vaccines is through health education. The quantitative study used educational messages that it sent to individuals to improve their uptake vaccines. The authors are categorical that using persuasive messaging allows more people to focus on their responsibility to stop the spread of the condition. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows the efficacy of persuasive messages to the public as an intervention to improve vaccine taking by individuals.

The third article by Jensen et al. (2022) aims at evaluating the effectiveness of video-based messages to reduce vaccine hesitancy and use for the general population to prevent and reduce the rise in Covid-19 and associated severe effects. The authors use online experiment to demonstrate that willingness to get vaccinated is influenced by the kind of messaging that stakeholders. These messages increase confidence in Covod-19 vaccines and perceived behavioral approaches for vaccination. These messages altered the perception of the skeptical people who had no confidence in Covid-19 vaccines. Imperatively, the article supports the PICOT question by showing the effectiveness of messages to improve uptake of the developed vaccines to reduce the spread and severity of Covid-19 pandemic.

The fourth article by Piltch-Loeb et al. (2021) examines the effects of different communication and messaging channels in information dissemination to increase acceptance of the Covid-19 jab. The quantitative study used education as an intervention to improve confidence in the Covid-19 vaccines. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows that educational interventions are essential in improving acceptance and uptake of Covid-19 vaccines in the general population.

The fourth article by Li et al. (2022) discusses the effect of an education intervention on Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Using an education intervention that comprised a PowerPoint presentation, the study shows that having sufficient information through education is essential to dealing altering perception and improving uptake of vaccines in different populations like the American military. The article supports the PICOT question as it shows that health education is an integral part of improving acceptance of any intervention to tackle public health problems like infectious diseases.

The fifth article is by Miller et al. (2022) discusses the impact pf education, partisanship and biological literacy on understanding the Covid-19 disease. At the core of the study was the use of different approaches, including education to improve understanding of Covid-19 among the general population. The study supports the PICOT question based on the data that it provides to justify the role of health education for people to accept these vaccines and be willing to get shots to reduce its overall effects.

The sixth article by Piltch-Loeb et al. (2022) tests that effectiveness of attitudinal inoculation videos in improving acceptance of Covid-19 vaccine. Using different intervention groups, the article observes that vaccinated individuals do not accept misinformation. These findings support the PICOT question as they show the need to have effective education that expands and helps people make better choices, like taking vaccines.

The seventh article by Davis et al. (2019) explores the importance of accessing the right information to influence one’s taking of the vaccine. The quantitative study used 481 participants to assess the efficacy of education and information on Covid-19 to improve uptake of vaccines. The article supports the PICOT question for the EBP project as it shows that education and information are essential components of an effective public health system.

The eighth article addresses the role of vaccine campaign through an educational approach in shifting the willingness of persons to get vaccinated against the Covid-19 pandemic. Using a sample population of 2000 adults from Latin America, the authors show that the proposed intervention is essential in relaying messages to improve uptake of Covid-19 vaccine. Imperatively, the article supports the PICOT question as it illustrates that the use of education is important in having effective awareness and demystifying any negative perception on the role of vaccines.

Comparison of the Articles

 The articles show differences and similarities in their themes and conclusions. They all demonstrate that use of education and information as ways of improving uptake of Covid-19 vaccines among the general population. The consistency of themes in these articles demonstrate that educational interventions through effective messaging can reduce the adverse effects of Covid-19 by allowing those affected or not to have vaccination. All the articles show limitations based on their settings and researchers’ overall aim of their research work. However, their conclusions are emphatic that using educational approaches improve confidence in the Covid-19 leading to the willingness for individuals to have their shots or jabs to prevent the spread of the disease. None of the articles discusses any controversy but explore the effects of Covid-19 information and awareness among different demographics in the country and the world at large.

Suggestions for Future Research

These articles provide existing evidence on the efficacy of having health education to improve uptake of Covid-19 vaccines in the general population. However, there is need for future research as intimated by a majority of the researchers. The identified gaps include demonstrating beyond doubt that the use of health education and how it can enhance uptake of Covid-19 vaccines among individuals in society. Future research needs to focus on interventions that can be implemented through technologies to improve confidence in the vaccines and overall efforts to deal with the pandemic. Education is essential in improving uptake of Covid-19 jabs since inoculated people do not depend on misinformation to accept or decline the vaccines.

Conclusion

The review of literature demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed intervention by the PICOT question. As such, this synthesis paper illustrates that the intervention is effective and should be embraced by all interested in getting vaccines. These articles emphasize the need for information and awareness to improve uptake and acceptance of the vaccines as developed by the World Health Organization.

NUR 550 Benchmark -Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review References

Davis, C. J., Golding, M., & McKay, R. (2022). Efficacy information influences the intention to

take the COVID‐19 vaccine. British Journal of Health Psychology, 27(2), 300-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12546

Piltch-Loeb, R., Su, M., Hughes, B., Testa, M., Goldberg, B., Braddock, K., … & Savoia, E.

(2022). Testing the Efficacy of attitudinal inoculation videos to enhance COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: quasi-experimental intervention trial. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 8(6), e34615. https://doi.org/10.2196/34615

James, E. K., Bokemper, S. E., Gerber, A. S., Omer, S. B., & Huber, G. A. (2021). Persuasive

messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. Vaccine, 39(49), 7158-7165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.10.039

Jensen, U. T., Ayers, S., & Koskan, A. M. (2022). Video-based messages to reduce COVID-19

vaccine hesitancy and nudge vaccination intentions. PloS One, 17(4), e0265736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265

Kaim, A., Siman-Tov, M., Jaffe, E., & Adini, B. (2021). Effect of a concise educational program

on COVID-19 vaccination attitudes. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 767447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.767447

Li, P. C., Theis, S. R., Kelly, D., Ocampo, T., Berglund, A., Morgan, D., … & Burtson, K.

(2022). Impact of an education intervention on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Military Medicine, 187(Special Issue_13), e1516-e1522. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usab363

Miller, J. D., Ackerman, M. S., Laspra, B., Polino, C., & Huffaker, J. S. (2022). Public attitude

toward Covid‐19 vaccination: The influence of education, partisanship, biological literacy, and coronavirus understanding. The FASEB Journal, 36(7). https://doi.org/10.1096%2Ffj.202200730

Motta, M., Sylvester, S., Callaghan, T., & Lunz-Trujillo, K. (2021). Encouraging COVID-19

vaccine uptake through effective health communication. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 630133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.630133

Piltch-Loeb, R., Savoia, E., Goldberg, B., Hughes, B., Verhey, T., Kayyem, J., … & Testa, M.

(2021). Examining the effect of information channels on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Plos One, 16(5), e0251095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251095

Description:

The purpose of this assignment is to write a review of the research articles you evaluated in your Topic 5
“Evidence-Based Practice Project: Evaluation of Literature” assignment. If you have been directed by your instructor to select different articles in order to meet the requirements for a literature review or to better support your evidence-based practice project proposal, complete this step prior to writing your review.

A literature review provides a concise comparison of the literature for the reader and explains how the research demonstrates support for your PICOT. You will use the literature review in this assignment in NUR-590, during which you will write a final paper detailing your evidence-based practice project proposal.

In a paper of 1,250-1,500, select eight of the ten articles you evaluated that demonstrate clear support for your evidence-based practice and complete the following for each article:

1. Introduction – Describe the clinical issue or problem you are addressing. Present your PICOT statement.
   2. Search methods – Describe your search strategy and the criteria that you used in choosing and searching for your articles.
   3. Synthesis of the literature – For each article, write a paragraph discussing the main components (subjects, methods, key findings) and provide rationale for how the article supports your PICOT.
   4. Comparison of articles – Compare the articles (similarities and differences, themes, methods, conclusions, limitations, controversies).
   5. Suggestions for future research: Based on your analysis of the literature, discuss identified gaps and which areas require further research.
   6. Conclusion – Provide a summary statement of what you found in the literature.
   7. Complete the “APA Writing Checklist” to ensure that your paper adheres to APA style and formatting criteria and general guidelines for academic writing. Include the completed checklist as an appendix at the end of your paper.

Refer to the “Evidence-Based Practice Project Proposal – Assignment Overview” document for an overview of the evidence-based practice project proposal assignments.

You are required to cite eight peer-reviewed sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

MBA-MSN; MSN-Nursing Education; MSN Acute Care Nurse Practitioner-Adult-Gerontology; MSN Family Nurse Practitioner; MSN-Health Informatics; MSN-Health Care Quality and Patient Safety; MSN-Leadership in Health Care Systems; MSN-Public Health Nursing

3.2: Analyze appropriate research from databases and other information sources to improve health care practices and processes.

Topic 7 DQ 1

Description:

Identify two major policy issues that affect the current state of health care delivery and population health equity in the United States (may be state or federal). What impact do these population health policies and initiatives have on advanced nursing practice?

Topic 7 DQ 2

Description:

Select an effective current health policy that focuses on or affects population health. What components of this policy make it effective? Conduct research on its history and the factors that influenced its development.

Topic 7 Participation

Description:

NA

Topic 7: Policies Affecting Practice and State of Health Care Delivery

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NUR 550 Benchmark -Evidence-Based Practice Project Literature Review

Description

Objectives:

1. Identify major policy issues affecting the state of health care delivery and population health equity.
   2. Analyze the components of effective population-based health policies.
   3. Discuss the impact of population health policies and initiatives on advanced nursing practice.
   Study Materials

Advanced Practice Nursing: Essential Knowledge for the Profession

Description:

Read Chapter 9 in Advanced Practice Nursing: Essential Knowledge for the Profession.

Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness

Description:

Read Chapter 7 and review Chapter 10 in Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness.

Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare

Description:

Review Chapter 19 in Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Healthcare.

Health Policy and Health Services Delivery

Description:

Read “Health Policy and Health Services Delivery,” by Tullai-McGuinness and Reimer, from Encyclopedia of Nursing Research(2017).

The Untapped Potential of the Nurse Practitioner Workforce in Reducing Health Disparities

Description:

Read “The Untapped Potential of the Nurse Practitioner Workforce in Reducing Health Disparities,” by Poghsyan and Carthon, from Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice (2017).

How to Write a Literature Review in 30 Minutes or Less

Description:

View “How to Write a Literature Review in 30 Minutes or Less,” by Taylor, located on YouTube (2017).

Tasks

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NUR-550 NUR-550-O500 Benchmark – Part B: Literature Review 250.0

Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less than Satisfactory (80.00%) Satisfactory (88.00%) Good (92.00%) Excellent (100.00%)
Content 70.0%
Introduction 5.0% An introduction is not included. An introduction is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. An introduction is present. An introduction is clearly provided and well developed. A comprehensive introduction is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

Methods 15.0% A discussion of methods, including criteria used to select the articles, is not included. A discussion of methods, including criteria used to select the articles, is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. A discussion of methods, including criteria used to select the articles, is present. A discussion of methods, including criteria used to select the articles, is clearly provided and well developed. A comprehensive discussion of methods, including criteria used to select the articles, is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

Literature Synthesis, Part A 15.0% A discussion of the main components of each article, including subjects, methods, key findings, and rationale for how the article supports the PICOT statement, is not included. A discussion of the main components of each article, including subjects, methods, key findings, and rationale for how the article supports the PICOT statement, is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. A discussion of the main components of each article, including subjects, methods, key findings, and rationale for how the article supports the PICOT statement, is present. A discussion of the main components of each article, including subjects, methods, key findings, and rationale for how the article supports the PICOT statement, is clearly provided and well developed. A comprehensive discussion of the main components of each article, including subjects, methods, key findings, and rationale for how the article supports the PICOT statement, is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

Literature Synthesis, Part B 15.0% A discussion of the limitations, controversies, similarities, and differences of the studies is not included. A discussion of the limitations, controversies, similarities, and differences of the studies is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. A discussion of the limitations, controversies, similarities, and differences of the studies is present. A discussion of the limitations, controversies, similarities, and differences of the studies is clearly provided and well developed. A comprehensive discussion of the limitations, controversies, similarities, and differences of the studies is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

Areas of Further Study (C3.2) 15.0% An analysis of evidence in the articles to identify what is known, unknown, and needed for further study is not included. An analysis of evidence in the articles to identify what is known, unknown, and needed for further study is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete. An analysis of evidence in the articles to identify what is known, unknown, and needed for further study is present. An analysis of evidence in the articles to identify what is known, unknown, and needed for further study is clearly provided and well developed. A comprehensive analysis of evidence in the articles to identify what is known, unknown, and needed for further study is thoroughly developed with supporting details.

Required Sources 5.0% Sources are not included. Number of required sources is only partially met. Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate. Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content. Number of required resources is met. Sources are current, and appropriate for the assignment criteria and nursing content.

Organization and Effectiveness 20.0%

Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Format 10.0%

Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS

Discussion Questions (DQ)

Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.

Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.

One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.

I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.

Weekly Participation

Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.

In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.

Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).

Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.

APA Format and Writing Quality

Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).

Cite all sources of inf