Literature Review and PICOT Question

Literature Review and PICOT Question

A literature review evaluates the relevance of various research articles to the PICOT question. By so doing, the literature review provides more information about various aspects of the PICOT question. My PICOT question states: Among the elderly patients visiting the emergency department, does implementing standardized risk assessment compared to regular assessment decrease the incidence and prevalence of falls over three months? This paper provides a review of eight articles that support my PICOT question.

Comparison of Research Questions

Research articles with qualitative study designs have research questions, whereas those with quantitative study designs have hypotheses. The article by Cho and Jang (2020) sought to evaluate nurses’ knowledge and attitudes toward fall prevention. This is relevant because nurses are significant stakeholders involved in patient care and fall prevention. The research question that can be formulated for the study is: what views do nurses have about falls and methods for preventing them? On the other hand, Dykes et al. (2020) conducted a study that sought to ascertain the impact of a patient-centered fall-prevention tool kit on the mitigation of falls and injuries. Based on the article’s purpose, the potential hypothesis is that a patient-centered fall prevention tool kit minimizes falls and injuries. The article by Ganz and Latham (2020) evaluates fall prevention strategies for older adults found in the community. As such, the article hypothesizes that exercise programs mitigate falls among community-dwelling older adults. Haescher et al. (2020) aimed to determine the effectiveness of automated devices in assessing fall risk. The authors hypothesize that wearable devices facilitate the assessment of fall risks.

Moreover, McManus et al. (2022) sought to develop data metrics to evaluate fall risk among older adults. As such, the article hypothesizes that data-driven metrics using inertial sensors accurately assess fall risk among older adults. On the other hand, Neugebauer et al. (2021) evaluated the use of standardized and non-standardized risk assessment tools (RATs) in clinical practice. The authors hypothesize that both standardized and non-standardized RATs can be used in fall risk assessment. Schoberer et al. (2022) sought to investigate fall prevention strategies in hospitals and nursing homes. The authors’ research question is: which techniques are used to mitigate falls in hospitals and nursing homes? Lastly, Tabatabaei and Ahmadipour (2020) aimed to use the Persian fall‑risk screening tool (PFRST) among older adults to assess psychometric qualities. As such, the article hypothesizes that the PFRST effectively determines fall risk among older adults.

Comparison of Sample Populations

Various sample populations are presented in the research articles. To begin with, Cho and Jang (2020) engaged 162 nurses working in various hospitals in China, whereas Dykes et al. (2020) conducted their study in medical units found in Boston and New York City. Ganz and Latham (2020) systematically reviewed articles from organizational websites and online registries. On the other hand, Haescher et al. (2020) engaged 13 participants from a nursing home in Sweden. McManus et al. (2022) conducted the study at St James’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, and included respondents aged at least 60 years without a history of stroke. Neugebauer et al. (2021) engaged nurses in the Czech Republic, whereas Schoberer et al. (2022) and Tabatabaei and Ahmadipour (2020) targeted older adults in nursing homes and hospitals.

Comparison of the Limitations of the Study

The authors identified individualized limitations of their studies. To begin with, Cho and Jang (2020) report that their findings are not generalizable because of their small sample population. Similar findings are reported by Ganz and Latham (2020), who argue that excluding people with cognitive disorders may limit the generalizability of the findings. Also, the authors report that the respondents may not have understood their questions. On the other hand, Dykes et al. (2020) report that they could not evaluate adherence to the screening protocol. However, they report that the results are generalizable. Haescher et al. (2020) report that their results depend on the user’s accurate wearable device use. This necessitates training users on the appropriate use of the devices. McManus et al. (2022) report similar findings by stating that data accuracy depends on the appropriate use of the sensors. Neugebauer et al. (2021) report that the use of a non-standardized assessment tool impeded comparison. In contrast, Schoberer et al. (2022) report that their modified grading system may confuse users because it omits the opportunity to give a strong or weak recommendation. Tabatabaei and Ahmadipour (2020) report that the timed up-and-go test should be used cautiously because it lacks some indicators that predict falls among older adults.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research

The research questions and hypotheses seek to evaluate different aspects of fall prevention in the healthcare setting and the community. Also, the research questions and hypotheses identify various interventions to facilitate fall prevention. Standardized risk assessment tools, technology, and exercise programs have been proposed. Limitations of the studies indicate that a small sample population and unskilled stakeholders impede generalizability. As such, future research should address various aspects. Firstly, a large sample population should be used when researching the effectiveness of fall-risk assessment tools. Secondly, all participants should receive adequate training on the methodology, materials, and technology used in the study.

References

Cho, M. young, & Jang, S. J. (2020). Nurses’ knowledge, attitude, and fall prevention practices at South Korean hospitals: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Nursing, 19(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-020-00507-w

Dykes, P. C., Burns, Z., Adelman, J., Benneyan, J., Bogaisky, M., Carter, E., Ergai, A., Lindros, M. E., Lipsitz, S. R., Scanlan, M., Shaykevich, S., & Bates, D. W. (2020). Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Fall-Prevention Tool Kit to Reduce Falls and Injuries: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial. JAMA Network Open, 3(11), e2025889. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25889

Ganz, A. D., & Latham, K. L. (2020). Prevention of falls in community-dwelling older adults. The New England Journal of Medicine, 86(12). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1903252

Haescher, M., Chodan, W., Höpfner, F., Bieber, G., Aehnelt, M., Srinivasan, K., & Murphy, M. A. (2020). Automated fall risk assessment of the elderly using wearable devices. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, 7, 205566832094620. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055668320946209

McManus, K., Greene, B. R., Ader, L. G. M., & Caulfield, B. (2022). Development of Data-Driven Metrics for Balance Impairment and Fall Risk Assessment in Older Adults. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 69(7), 2324–2332. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2022.3142617

Neugebauer, J., Tóthová, V., & Doležalová, J. (2021). Use of standardized and non-standardized tools for measuring the risk of falls and independence in clinical practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063226

Schoberer, D., Breimaier, H. E., Zuschnegg, J., Findling, T., Schaffer, S., & Archan, T. (2022). Fall prevention in hospitals and nursing homes: Clinical practice guideline. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 19(2), 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12571

Tabatabaei, H. R., & Ahmadipour, H. (2020). Fall‑Risk Assessment in the Elderly Using the Persian Version of Fall‑Risk Screening Tool: A Population‑Based Study. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 11. https://doi.org/ 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_198_19

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone project change proposal, the literature review enables students to map out and move into the project’s active planning and development stages.

Literature Review and PICOT Question

A literature review analyzes how current research supports the PICOT and identifies what is known and what is not in the evidence. Students will use the information from the earlier PICOT Question Paper and Literature Evaluation Table assignments to develop a review (750-1,000 words) that includes the following sections:

1. Title page
2. Introduction section
3. A comparison of research questions
4. A comparison of sample populations
5. A comparison of the limitations of the study
6. A conclusion section incorporating recommendations for further research

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines in the APA Style Guide in the Student Success Center.