W6 NR439 PowerPoint Template
Directions
Using the population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and timeframe (PICOT) question developed in Week 2 and the research study you selected for the Week 3 or Week 4 discussion, select a method to plan the dissemination of research findings through a paper, poster, or PowerPoint. This assignment encompasses the planning for dissemination through the completion of the selected template but does not require an oral presentation.
-
Answer each question in your own words on the selected Planning for the Dissemination of Research Findings template.
-
Do not copy and paste information from the research study into the template.
-
Correctly cite and reference the research study when paraphrasing it to answer questions on the Planning for the Dissemination of Research Findings template.
-
Ensure your chosen research study from the Week 3 or 4 discussion is no more than five years old.
-
Follow rules of grammar, spelling, word usage, and punctuation consistent with formal, scientific writing.
-
Abide by Chamberlain University’s academic integrity policy.
Include the following sections (detailed criteria listed below and in the grading rubric). Answer the questions under each section with explanation and detail.
Section 1: PICOT Question
-
Explain the clinical nursing practice problem you selected in Week 2.
-
State the PICOT question you developed.
-
Discuss the search strategy used to find research evidence.
Section 2: Research Evidence Design
-
Introduce your selected research study and discuss how it supports the PICOT question.
-
Explain the research design and methodology used in the study.
-
Discuss the participants, data collection methods, and data analysis.
Section 3: Research Evidence Results and Discussion
-
Explain the research results.
-
Display the results using a visual aid such as a graph, chart, or table.
-
Discuss how the results from this study answer the PICOT question.
Section 4: Critique of Evidence
-
Discuss your overall critique of the evidence.
-
What were the strengths of the study?
-
What were the weaknesses or limitations of the study?
Section 5: Application to Practice
-
Explain how the study contributes to the existing body of knowledge.
-
Discuss any potential challenges or barriers to implementing these findings.
-
Propose recommendations for integrating the evidence into clinical practice.
PICOT question and the quantitative nature and purpose of the study
My PICOT question guiding this analysis is: “In children aged 5-12 years at risk of obesity or who are overweight (P), how does a structured, school-based educational and physical activity program (I) compared to standard health education (C) affect BMI percentile, dietary habits, and physical activity levels(O) within 12 months (T)”. The chosen study is a systematic review and meta-analysis by Jacob et al. (2021), investigating the effectiveness of school-based interventions in lowering BMI through health education directed to adolescents. It is quantitative, since it utilizes numerical data and focuses on restorable outcomes like changes in BMI and other forms of health metrics in measuring intervention impact. The systematic collection and synthesis of numerical data from different studies provide thus meta-analysis with statistically valid conclusions of effectiveness. The focus and aim of the present study are constructive conceptualized school-based health programs should significantly reduce BMI in adolescents, matching it closely to the PICOT question that deals with how similar programs may be of significance to younger children (Jacob et al., 2021). Combining measurable outcomes from multiple studies statistically validate the insights in respect of Obesity prevention and bolstered the case advanced for school-based interventions to improve health outcomes in youth at risk.
The method of the study
The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that integrates information from multiple studies, allowing for stronger conclusions regarding intervention impacts on adolescents' BMI and related outcomes (Hossan et al., 2023). The authors used a broad and comprehensive study literature Database search of studies published in peer-reviewed journals, using a predefined set of criteria for inclusion. They assured that they included only studies that reported BMI outcomes for adolescents aged 10-19 and who participated in school-based programs that combined health education and physical activity. Notably, the meta-analysis method is exceedingly appropriate for this initiative and helps to yield findings that can be extrapolated to the broader population of the school-based interventions (Hossan et al., 2023). An important advantage of the meta-analysis was the wide variety of studies incorporated within given limits on their size, thus improving the reliability of findings while minimizing the biases that generally accompany those present in individual studies. The meta-analysis approach adopted by the authors is especially appropriate because it allows for generalizable results in larger populations. Using this technique, researchers are can pool findings across diverse samples in a way that yields an overview of intervention efficacy not possible from a single study (Hossan et al., 2023). This study contributes to reliability and validity by allowing wide variation in sample size and geographical location. Such helps to minimize biases or anomalies affecting individual studies
Summary of the findings
This study was conducted by Jacob et al. in 2021. They determined that combined school-based health education and physical activity programs reduce BMI and positively affect physical activity levels and dietary habits in adolescents. The results indicate that structured interventions within schools have the potential to alter the lifestyles of children positively. In nursing contexts, this study exemplifies the present importance of evidence-based and community-oriented health education implemented at the population level towards alleviating childhood obesity (Smith et al., 2020). This would be conducive to reducing the risk of obesity-related health conditions within the youth population. Besides, it also upholds public health initiatives and nursing priorities in terms of advancing health and well-being over a lifetime. Recommendations for future research include exploring the long-term sustainability of BMI reductions, examining the effectiveness of similar interventions in younger populations (closer to my PICOT’s age range of 5-12), and assessing how different cultural and socioeconomic factors may affect the outcomes (Spiga et al., 2024)
References
Hossan, D., Dato’Mansor, Z., & Jaharuddin, N. S. (2023). Research population and sampling in quantitative study. International Journal of Business and Technopreneurship (IJBT), 13(3), 209–222. https://ejournal.unimap.edu.my/index.php/ijbt/article/view/263
Jacob, C. M., Hardy-Johnson, P. L., Inskip, H. M., Morris, T., Parsons, C. M., Barrett, M., ... & Baird, J. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based interventions with health education to reduce body mass index in adolescents aged 10 to 19 years. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 18, 1–22. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12966-020-01065-9
Smith, J. D., Fu, E., & Kobayashi, M. A. (2020). Prevention and management of childhood obesity and its psychological and health comorbidities. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 351–378. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-100219-060201
Spiga, F., Tomlinson, E., Davies, A. L., Moore, T. H., Dawson, S., Breheny, K., ... & Summerbell, C. D. (2024). Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 12 to 18 years old. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (5). https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015330.pub2/abstract
