Synthesizing the Best Evidence
Synthesizing the Best Evidence
Order Instructions:
This paper below is a continuation of order #113857 so the writer must reference back to the paper completed in that order so that he/she can be familiar with the evidence presented in that paper to better respond to this questions below. The writer must clearly respond to all questions listed below using pear review articles to support the responses. The writer must also at the same time review all evidence presented in that order number so as to properly respond to the 5 questions presented below here in paragraphs.
Step 3: Synthesize the Best Evidence
During this week’s paper, you will focus on synthesizing the best evidence. Building on work done in the clinical practicum setting, and looking toward work with the EBP, answer the following questions:
1. What consistencies did you find in the evidence?
2. What inconsistencies did you find in the evidence?
3. What are possible explanations for the inconsistencies?
4. What gaps or holes in the evidence base justify the need for continued work in the area?
5. How does the evidence you have found support a practice change?
SAMPLE ANSWER
From the analysis; it is evident that diabetes is a chronic disease that needs proper coping strategies in order to manage the disease effectively. This helps in management of symptoms and delays disease progression. One of these coping strategies is patient empowerment through education. This will help in ensuring that the patient is well informed about his/her nutritional requirements and the appropriate lifestyle modifications. From the articles analysed, they agree on establishing cooperation between the patient and health personnel to identify the best diabetic education (Steinsbekk, et al., 2012).
The evidence based studies inconstancies are observed mainly on reasons behind the low patient knowledge. For instance, Inzucchin and colleagues identify that the source of these challenges are due to unequipped trainers who have insufficient knowledge of education for patient with diabetes. The trainers fail to identify individual specific needs and address education program in a generalised structure. This fails to improve patient knowledge sufficiently. On the other hand, Steinsbekk and colleagues indicate that there is reduced educational facilities and lack of infrastructures that will facilitate adequate training. The articles call for funding from the government and no governmental institutions to facilitate adequate establishment of resources. Therefore, is need to establish the main source of low efficacy patient education programs, so as they can be addressed in totality
The possible explanations of these inconsistencies is probably because most of the studies are done within a small cohort or controlled environment; and in most cases, these beneficial interventions are not translated to individuals lining outside the community. Although pertinent in realization of the benefits of the research findings, the translational studies on role of patient education among diabetic patient is lacking. This poses challenges during training, and in the identification of the exact causative agent attributable to ineffective patient education strategies (Inzucchi, et al., 2012).
Although patient education is an important strategy in the National Diabetes Prevention and Control program, there exist gaps and holes in the evidence based research which justifies the need to improve knowledge in this research. There lacks necessary investment that will facilitate its achievement. Additionally, patient education structure is not specific enough. It fails to identify the exact component of patient education that should be focused on i.e. Nutritional status or pharmacotherapy. It seems that there is need to conduct a closer surveillance to develop training programs for diabetic patients to overcome the prevailing inconsistences and shortcomings that impede effective patient education (Inzucchi, et al., 2015).
The evidence found supports the identified practice change in that it supports that the main reason for increased complications among diabetes type 2 patients is reduced knowledge on coping strategies. There is no treatment for diabetes Type 2; and what should be supported is providing patient education in all aspects that will regularize the patient habits- including nutritional habits and medication management (Steinsbekk, et al., 2012).
This will reduce complications attributed to the metabolic control as it will empower the patient to learn essential information as well as capabilities that will ensure improved quality of life. Additionally, it is important to have long term follow-ups to monitor patient capabilities and address new challenges that they could be facing. Additionally, it is important to establish a good relationship between the patient, physician and dietician. The improved monitoring systems will ensure that the education program is structured and also provide an opportunity to overcome any shortcomings that would prevail (Kayshap et al., 2013).
References
Inzucchi, S. E., Bergenstal, R. M., Buse, J. B., Diamant, M., Ferrannini, E., Nauck, M., … & Matthews, D. R. (2012). Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes care, 35(6), 1364-1379.
Inzucchi, S. E., Bergenstal, R. M., Buse, J. B., Diamant, M., Ferrannini, E., Nauck, M., … & Matthews, D. R. (2015). Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centered approach: update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care, 38(1), 140-149.
Kashyap, S. R., Bhatt, D. L., Wolski, K., Watanabe, R. M., Abdul-Ghani, M., Abood, B., … & Kirwan, J. P. (2013). Metabolic Effects of Bariatric Surgery in Patients With Moderate Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Analysis of a randomized control trial comparing surgery with intensive medical treatment.Diabetes care, 36(8), 2175-2182.
Steinsbekk, A., Rygg, L., Lisulo, M., Rise, M. B., & Fretheim, A. (2012). Group based diabetes self-management education compared to routine treatment for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC health services research, 12(1), 213.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
