Article Analysis 2 Points 130 Rubric Assessment Traits Requires Lopeswrite
Assessment Description
Search the GCU Library and find two new health care articles that use quantitative research. Do not use articles from a previous assignment, or articles that appear in the topic Resources or textbook.
Complete an article analysis for each using the “Article Analysis: Part 2” template.
Refer to the “Patient Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital-at-Home and Usual Hospital Care for COPD Exacerbations: Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial,” in conjunction with the “Article Analysis Example 2,” for an example of an article analysis.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting 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.
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.
Rubric Criteria
Two Quantitative Articles
13 points
Criteria Description
Two Quantitative Articles
5. 5: Excellent
13 points
Two articles are presented. Both articles are based on quantitative research.
4. 4: Good
11.05 points
N/A
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.75 points
Two articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only one articles are based on quantitative research
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
8.45 points
N/A
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Fewer than two articles are presented. None of the articles presented use quantitative research.
Article Citation and Permalink
13 points
Criteria Description
Article Citation and Permalink
5. 5: Excellent
13 points
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is accurately presented in APA format. Page numbers are accurate and used in all areas when citing information.
4. 4: Good
11.05 points
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is presented in APA format. Page numbers are used in to cite information. There are minor errors.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.75 points
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is presented in APA format, but there are errors. Page numbers to cite information are missing, or incorrect, in some areas.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
8.45 points
Article citation and permalink are presented. There are significant errors. Page numbers are not indicated to cite information, or the page numbers are incorrect.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Article citation and permalink are omitted.
Broad Topic Area/Title
13 points
Criteria Description
Broad Topic Area/Title
5. 5: Excellent
13 points
Broad topic area and title are fully presented and accurate.
4. 4: Good
11.05 points
Broad topic area and title are presented. There are some minor errors, but the content overall is accurate.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.75 points
Broad topic area and title are summarized. There are some minor inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
8.45 points
Broad topic area and title are referenced but are incomplete.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Broad topic area and title are omitted.
Hypothesis
13 points
Criteria Description
Hypothesis
5. 5: Excellent
13 points
Hypothesis is accurate and clearly defined.
4. 4: Good
11.05 points
Hypothesis is defined. Hypothesis is generally defined. There are some minor inaccuracies.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.75 points
Hypothesis is generally defined. There are some minor inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
8.45 points
Hypothesis is summarized. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Definition of hypothesis is omitted. The definition of the hypothesis is incorrect.
Independent and Dependent Variable Type and Data for Variable
13 points
Criteria Description
Independent and Dependent Variable Type and Data for Variable
5. 5: Excellent
13 points
Variable types and data for variables are presented and accurate.
4. 4: Good
11.05 points
Variable types and data for variables are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.75 points
Variable types and data for variables are presented. There are inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
8.45 points
Variable types and data for variables are presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Variable types and data for variables are omitted.
Population of Interest for the Study
13 points
Criteria Description
Population of Interest for the Study
5. 5: Excellent
13 points
Population of interest for the study is presented and accurate.
4. 4: Good
11.05 points
Population of interest for the study is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.75 points
Population of interest for the study is presented. There are inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
8.45 points
Population of interest for the study is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Population of interest for the study is omitted.
Sample
13 points
Criteria Description
Sample
5. 5: Excellent
13 points
Sample is presented and accurate. Page citation for sample information is provided.
4. 4: Good
11.05 points
Sample is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy. Page citation for sample information is provided.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.75 points
Sample is presented. There are inaccuracies.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
8.45 points
Sample is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sample is omitted.
Sampling Method
13 points
Criteria Description
Sampling Method
5. 5: Excellent
13 points
Sampling method is presented and accurate.
4. 4: Good
11.05 points
Sampling is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.75 points
Sampling is presented. There are inaccuracies. Page citation for sample information is omitted.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
8.45 points
Sampling is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sampling method is omitted.
How Was Data Collected
13 points
Criteria Description
How Was Data Collected
5. 5: Excellent
13 points
The means of data collection are presented and accurate. Page citation for sample information is provided.
4. 4: Good
11.05 points
The means of data collection are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy. Page citation for sample information is provided.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.75 points
The means of data collection are presented. There are inaccuracies. Page citation for sample information is omitted.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
8.45 points
The means of data collection are presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
The means of data collection are omitted.
Mechanics of Writing
13 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5. 5: Excellent
13 points
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. 4: Good
11.05 points
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.
3. 3: Satisfactory
9.75 points
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.
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory
8.45 points
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.
1. 1: Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.
Total130 points
First Article
The Use of Morphine to Treat Cancer-Related Pain: A Synthesis of Quantitative and Qualitative Research
doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.05.014
Vol. 39 No. 1 January 2010 Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 139
Kate Flemming, MSc, RN
Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, Heslington, York, United Kingdom
https://eds-s-ebscohost-com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=e260464f-c6e7-41bf-9f07-847c7cd00578%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=S0885392409007313&db=edselp
Abstract
Morphine is the most commonly used opioid for severe cancer-related pain. Despite its established
effectiveness, it is often used cautiously in clinical practice, particularly outside specialist
palliative care. This review identifies the key social, contextual, and physical concerns held by
patients, carers, and health care professionals when using morphine, which might explain the
caution taken in its use. The review used an approach called critical interpretive synthesis
(CIS), which combines conventional systematic review techniques with methods for
interpretative synthesis of qualitative research. An existing review examining the effectiveness of
morphine and a guideline on its use were synthesized with 19 qualitative articles to establish
understanding of how context of use can affect the established effectiveness of morphine. The
article argues for the appropriateness of CIS for answering questions of this type. The results
demonstrate that using morphine is a balancing act and a trade-off between pain relief and
adverse effects. Deep-seated concerns regarding the symbolism of morphine, addiction, and
tolerance are held by patients, carers, and clinicians, which influence prescription and use.
Cancer pain is a referent for disease status and has existential meaning, with the introduction of
morphine becoming a metaphor for impending death. Cancer pain is intersubjective, with its
perception and reporting influenced by those with whom the patient interacts. By understanding
the context and social meaning surrounding the use of morphine to treat cancer pain, health
care professionals can begin to anticipate, acknowledge, and address some of the barriers to its
use, thereby enhancing pain control. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010;39:139e154.
Second Article
Quantitative research on the impact of COVID-19 on frontline nursing staff at a military hospital in Saudi Arabia
Loujain Sharif, Khalid Almutairi, Khalid Sharif, Alaa Mahsoon, Maram Banakhar, Salwa Albeladi, Yaser Alqahtani, Zalikha Attar, Farida Abdali, Rebecca Wright
Nurs Open. 2023 Jan; 10(1): 217–229.
Published online 2022 Jul 22. doi: 10.1002/nop2.1297
https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.lopes.idm.oclc.org/pmc/articles/PMC9349684/
Abstract
Aim
The aim of the study was to examine the relationship between stress, psychological symptoms and job satisfaction among frontline nursing staff at a military hospital in Saudi Arabia during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Design
Descriptive cross‐sectional study.
Methods
Data were collected using an online survey. All Registered Nurses (N = 1,225) working at a military hospital between February to April 2021 were contacted, 625 responded (51%). Data were analysed using descriptive and multivariate analysis, Student’s t‐test for independent samples and one‐way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison tests.
Results
Stress was experienced more significantly than depression or anxiety. Approximately 29% of the change in scores for psychological symptoms was explained by age group, being a Saudi national and working in emergency departments (F [3,620] = 19.063, p < 0.0001). A 37% change in nursing stress scores was explained by nationality and work department. (F [5,618] = 19.754, p < 0.0001). A 29% change in job satisfaction scores was explained by nationality and work department (F [3,620] = 19.063, p < 0.0001).
Article Analysis 2
Article Citation
and Permalink
(APA format)
Article 1
Article 2
Point
Description
Description
Broad Topic Area/Title
Define Hypotheses
Define Independent and Dependent Variables and Types of Data for Variables
Population of Interest for the Study
Sample
Sampling Method
How Were Data Collected?
EXAMPLE