NRS 493 GCU Influenza Vaccination Among Patients Literature Evaluation Table In nursing practice, accurate identification and application of research is es

NRS 493 GCU Influenza Vaccination Among Patients Literature Evaluation Table In nursing practice, accurate identification and application of research is essential to achieving successful outcomes. The ability to articulate research data and summarize relevant content supports the student’s ability to further develop and synthesize the assignments that constitute the components of the capstone project.The assignment will be used to develop a written implementation plan.For this assignment, provide a synopsis of the review of the research literature. Using the “Literature Evaluation Table,” determine the level and strength of the evidence for each of the eight research articles. The articles should be current (within the last 5 years) and closely relate to the PICOT question developed earlier in this course. The articles may include quantitative research, descriptive analyses, longitudinal studies, or meta-analysis articles. A systematic review may be used to provide background information for the purpose or problem identified in the proposed capstone project.While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. Course Code
NRS-493
Class Code
NRS-493-OL191
Criteria
Content
Percentage
100.0%
Author, Journal (Peer-Reviewed), and Permalink
or Working Link to Access Article
5.0%
Article Title and Year Published
5.0%
Research Questions (Qualitative) or Hypothesis
(Quantitative), and Purposes or Aim of Study
10.0%
Design (Type of Quantitative, or Type of
Qualitative)
5.0%
Setting or Sample
5.0%
Methods: Intervention or Instruments
5.0%
Analysis
10.0%
Key Findings
10.0%
Recommendations
10.0%
Explanation of How the Article Supports EBP or
Capstone
10.0%
Presentation
10.0%
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, and language use)
10.0%
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes,
references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to
assignment and style
5.0%
Total Weightage
100%
Assignment Title
Literature Evaluation Table
1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%)
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working
link to access article section is not included.
Article title and year published section is not included.
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative),
and purposes or aim of study section is not included.
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is
not included.
Setting or sample section is not included.
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is not included.
Analysis section is not included.
Key findings section is not included.
Recommendations section is not included.
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone
section is not included.
The piece is not neat or organized, and it does not include all
required elements.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or
sentence construction is employed.
Sources are not documented.
Total Points
50.0
2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%)
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working
link to access article section is present, but it lacks detail or is
incomplete.
Article title and year published section is present, but it lacks
detail or is incomplete.
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative),
and purposes or aim of study section is present, but it lacks
detail or is incomplete.
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is
present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
Setting or sample section is present, but it lacks detail or is
incomplete.
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present, but
it lacks detail or is incomplete.
Analysis section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
Key findings section is present, but it lacks detail or is
incomplete.
Recommendations section is present, but it lacks detail or is
incomplete.
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone
section is present, but it lacks detail or is incomplete.
The work is not neat and includes minor flaws or omissions of
required elements.
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.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as
appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous
formatting errors.
3: Satisfactory (79.00%)
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working
link to access article section is present.
Article title and year published section is present.
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative),
and purposes or aim of study section is present.
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is
present.
Setting or sample section is present.
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is present.
Analysis section is present.
Key findings section is present.
Recommendations section is present.
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone
section is provided.
The overall appearance is general, and major elements are
missing.
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.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, although some formatting errors may be present.
4: Good (89.00%)
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working
link to access article section is clearly provided and well
developed.
Article title and year published section is clearly provided and
well developed.
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative),
and purposes or aim of study section is clearly provided and
well developed.
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is
clearly provided and well developed.
Setting or sample section is clearly provided and well
developed.
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is clearly
provided and well developed.
Analysis section is clearly provided and well developed.
Key findings section is clearly provided and well developed.
Recommendations section is clearly provided and well
developed.
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone
section is clearly provided and well developed.
The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor
flaws or missing elements.
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.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, and format is mostly correct.
5: Excellent (100.00%)
Author, journal (peer-reviewed), and permalink or working
link to access article section is comprehensive and thoroughly
developed with supporting details.
Article title and year published section is comprehensive and
thoroughly developed with supporting details.
Research questions (qualitative) or hypothesis (quantitative),
and purposes or aim of study section is comprehensive and
thoroughly developed with supporting details.
Design (type of quantitative, or type of qualitative) section is
comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting
details.
Setting or sample section is comprehensive and thoroughly
developed with supporting details.
Methods: Intervention or Instruments section is
comprehensive and thoroughly developed with supporting
details.
Comments
Analysis section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed
with supporting details.
Key findings section is comprehensive and thoroughly
developed with supporting details.
Recommendations section is comprehensive and thoroughly
developed with supporting details.
Explanation of how the article supports EBP or capstone
section is comprehensive and thoroughly developed with
supporting details.
The work is well presented and includes all required
elements. The overall appearance is neat and professional.
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written,
academic English.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as
appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of
error.
Points Earned
Literature Evaluation Table
Student Name:
Change Topic (2-3 sentences):
Criteria
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Author, Journal (PeerReviewed), and
Permalink or Working
Link to Access Article
Article Title and Year
Published
Research Questions
(Qualitative)/Hypothesis
(Quantitative)
Purposes/Aim of Study
Design (Type of
Quantitative, or Type of
Qualitative)
Setting/Sample
Methods:
Intervention/Instruments
Analysis
Key Findings
Recommendations
Explanation of How the
Article Supports
EBP/Capstone Project
© 2015. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Article 4
Criteria
Article 5
Article 6
Article 7
Author, Journal (PeerReviewed), and
Permalink or Working
Link to Access Article
Article Title and Year
Published
Research Questions
(Qualitative)/Hypothesis
(Quantitative)
Purposes/Aim of Study
Design (Type of
Quantitative, or Type of
Qualitative)
Setting/Sample
Methods:
Intervention/Instruments
Analysis
Key Findings
Recommendations
Explanation of How the
Article Supports
EBP/Capstone
© 2017. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Article 8
Running head: CLINICAL PROBLEM
1
Clinical Problem
CLINICAL PROBLEM
2
Clinical Problem
There are numerous controversies regarding the effectiveness of vaccines. While they are
usually developed to promote prevention of infectious diseases like measles and influenza, most
people still oppose the use of vaccines due to risks of complications. The PICOT question related
to this project involves people’s attitudes towards vaccination. The PICOT question addresses
the challenges healthcare professional face regarding the use of influenza vaccination and
measures that can be taken to improve community awareness of the importance of influenza
vaccination. The PICOT question formulated based on the clinical problem would be, In the
nursing workforce (P), does the use of community awareness to educate people about the
importance of influenza vaccination (I) when compared to lack of community education
programs (C) increase positive responses to influenza vaccination (O), over time (T).
Evidence-Based Solution
Some of the reasons contributing to patients’ reluctance regarding use of influenza
vaccination are related to their access to information about the ineffectiveness of these vaccines.
Unlike healthcare professionals who rely on evidence-based studies, patients often get their
information from random sources on the internet, family members, other people, and from other
online platforms. Nurses can use evidence-based research to educate patients about the benefits
of this vaccination. Patients who are reluctant about getting influenza vaccinations have a higher
likelihood of believing data published in research as compared to random information from the
internet. The use of evidence-based solution to develop community education programs could
also promote positive patient outcomes by reducing risks of influenza (Fogarty & Crues, 2017).
Nursing Intervention
CLINICAL PROBLEM
3
The nursing intervention used determine whether patients would accept the influenza
vaccine. In cases where nurses do not provide their patients with adequate information regarding
the vaccination, patients are less likely to accept it, especially if they have reservations or have
heard negative information regarding the use of the vaccine. As such, nurses should evidence
their patients about the importance of the vaccine before using it as part of their intervention for
preventing risks of influenza among patients (Spencer, Pawlowski, & Thomas, 2017). This
would assist patients to separate myths from facts and accept the vaccine.
Patient Care
Reluctance to accept the influenza vaccination among patients affects their quality of life
and increases their risks of getting influenza. This is common in immunocompromised patients
who might have other underlying conditions that could increase their risks of being infected with
the influenza virus. Working with healthcare providers who are not equipped with knowledge on
the importance of the influenza shot, possible risks, and patients who should get the shot could
affect ability to deliver proper patient care (Abalkhail, et al., 2017; Fogarty & Crues, 2017).
Health Care Agency
Healthcare facilities that do not have well-established procedures for managing patients
with influenza might not be capable of offering the best care to affected patients. Having wellestablished guidelines ensures that all patients admitted in the facility who have not had the shot
before are offered the option of getting the vaccination. Insurance agencies should also educate
their customers about the importance of this vaccination and the reduced cost of healthcare they
would gain by eliminating their risks of getting the virus in future (Rogers, Bahr, & Benjamin,
2018).
CLINICAL PROBLEM
4
Nursing Practice
Nurses should be trained on the proper way of addressing patients while discussing with
them the importance of using the vaccine. Delivering the information in a professional manner
that makes the patient feel confident about the knowledge provided by the nurse can increase
their likelihood of accepting the vaccination. Offering the patient proof from research can also
influence their decisions positively (Fogarty & Crues, 2017).
While most people are reluctant to receive the influenza vaccine because of issues such as
inadequate information, there is a need to educate patients about its importance. Using evidence
from research can positively influence patients’ decisions. Nurses should address the information
carefully to ensure that patients understand the effects of not receiving the vaccination.
CLINICAL PROBLEM
5
References
Abalkhail, M. S., Alzahrany, M. S., Alghamdi, K. A., Alsoliman, M. A., Alzahrani, M. A.,
Almosned, B. S., . . . Tharkar, S. (2017). Uptake of influenza vaccination, awareness and
its associated barriers among medical students of a University Hospital in Central Saudi
Arabia. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 10(5), 644-648. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034117301338.
Fogarty, C. T., & Crues, L. (2017). How to talk to reluctant patients about the flu shot. Family
Practice Management, 1-3.
Rogers, C. J., Bahr, K. O., & Benjamin, S. M. (2018). Attitudes and barriers associated with
seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among public health students; a cross-sectional
study. BMC Public Health, 18, 1131. Retrieved from
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-018-6041-1.
Spencer, J. P., Pawlowski, R. T., & Thomas, S. (2017). Vaccine Adverse Events: Separating
Myth from Reality. American Family Physician, 95(12), 786-794.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment