Lesson 6 discussion

If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality, and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. We are the ideal place for all your writing needs.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Using the Literature MATRIX

As you read and  evaluate your literature there are several different ways to organize  your research. One of these ways to organize your work using a “matrix”

No, not this, matrix, but the one attached to this discussion (Appendix G).  


 Download 2017_Appendix_G_Individual_Evidence_Tool

This  document allows you to compile details about your sources, such as the  foundational theories, methodologies, and conclusions; begin to note  similarities among the authors, and retrieve citation information for  easy insertion within a document.


  1. Instructions:
    1. Conduct a rapid critical analysis of the five (5) articles (use the articles used in discussion 5).
    2. Title the discussion with the PICOT question.
    3. Initial post: Your post should be within a range of 150-200 words and answer the following questions.
      1. Choose one of the research studies in the Matrix table (Appendix G).
      2. Provide a brief overview of what the article was trying to do (i.e., the problem).
      3. What is the type of the study( experimental, cohort, case-study)?
      4. What was the purpose of the study?
      5. Describe the sample (who are the participants, how they were selected). Setting (where it happen).
      6. What is the source of the data?  (was a survey, intervention, observation, interviews).
      7. What were the results? (major findings) (look at the discussion, what was learned).
      8. Limitations (who funded the research, was the sample too small).
    4. Peer response: Identify two (2) students that may share a similar question and comment in their literature matrix post. Remmeb
    5. Cite your references APA 7th  ed. (not included in the length of the post). 
    6. To see rubric, click on the 3-dot menu  on the top-right side of screen. 

Discussion: For elderly patients with chronic disease (P), does implementing the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) (I), compared to not implementing the C-SSRS (C), increase early suicidal thought detection for better management (O)?

Yolande Tumot

Miami Dade College

Evidence Based Practice

Roxana Orta


Discussion: For elderly patients with chronic disease (P), does implementing the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) (I), compared to not implementing the C-SSRS (C), increase early suicidal thought detection for better management (O)?

Finding strong evidence is vital to adequately answering PICO questions through the provision of reliable, valid, and highly generalized research evidence. Strong evidence forms a solid foundation for the PICO project and ensures the developed project intervention is effective in solving the identified nursing problem. Evidence at higher hierarchy levels gives stronger evidence for the project’s literature. John et al. (2020) and Witt et al. (2020) are among the high-level evidence journal articles identified in discussion 4. The two article journals are systematic reviews and meta-analyses and belong to the highest evidence level (Level 1). Systematic reviews involving meta-analysis of methodologically sound randomized controlled trials (CRTs) with consistent findings are categorized as Level I evidence (Wang et al., 2020). The evidence provided by the articles is very compelling and adequately answers the PICO question. The literature provides resourceful evidence for a stronger project’s background. Articles in the level I category are designed to have a lower systematic error risk and are unbiased, therefore giving valid research findings. There are compelling reasons why C-SSRS is effective in screening and identifying suicidal thoughts at the earliest possible opportunity for early treatment.


John, J. R., Jani, H., Peters, K., Agho, K., & Tannous, W. K. (2020). The effectiveness of patient-centred medical home-based models of care versus standard primary care in chronic disease management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials.
International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(18), 6886.

Wang, Z., Ding, R., & Wang, J. (2020). The association between vitamin D status and autism spectrum disorder (ASD): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Nutrients, 13(1), 86.

Witt, K., Potts, J., Hubers, A., Grunebaum, M. F., Murrough, J. W., Loo, C., … & Hawton, K. (2020). Ketamine for suicidal ideation in adults with psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment trials. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 54(1), 29-45.

Are you stuck with another assignment? Use our paper writing service to score better grades and meet your deadlines. We are here to help!

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper