Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The references that researchers choose help shape not only the process but also the results of the conducted study. As such, it is essential not only to find relevant and supportive evidence but also to rely on a wide variety of reference to strengthen continuity and logical ties with previous studies (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019).
As such, taking into consideration a comparative perspective and looking for sources that support different viewpoints while simultaneously drawing upon an extensive body of reviewed literature may help create a well-rounded assertion. This approach could be especially relevant in questions that assess a statement by juxtaposing it. Thus, the matter of comparing cannabidiol (CBD) against opioid treatment in chemotherapy requires using research that deals with both aspects of the question quantitatively and comprehensively.
Types of Research
Including and referencing different types of research allows exploring all aspects of the chosen problem. Doing so is crucial because it helps secure a further level of credibility for the conducted research (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019). A primarily quantitative approach helps efficiently delineate the study process, using secure numbers and statistics to support conclusions (Duffy, 2005). However, addressing a PICOT question requires recognizing all types of “existing knowledge in the respective area” (Riva et al., 2012, p. 170). Thus, using a variety of supplementary sources may benefit evidence-based practice as it allows for the consideration of an issue from different healthcare perspectives. Doing so minimizes the possibility of drawing faulty conclusions, even when the researcher accurately conducts the study process in all other aspects.
The chosen PICOT question assesses the query of how CBD influences patients’ pain during chemotherapy treatment when compared to the more traditional opioid prescriptions. As such, this question requires primary reliance on quantitative studies, which allow for the comparison of the two treatment types through an easy to apperceive method of data analysis (Duffy, 2005). Thus, the integration of a quantitative systematic review paper, for example, the article by Tafelski, Hauser, and Schafer (2016), may help apperceive a wide variety of information with a significant decrease in bias. Therefore, including this type of study in the reference page permits relying on statistical data that is both refined and reliable.
Another type of source that could be beneficial to the chosen PICOT question is a descriptive systematic review paper. Using this type of paper permits going beyond the immediate implications of a study and drafting long-term repercussions that may stem from changes in current healthcare practice (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019). For example, the paper titled “Pain and opioids in cancer care: Benefits, risks, and alternatives” by Bennett, Paice, and Wallace (2018) presents an overview that juxtaposes the two treatment types. Thus, including a descriptive systematic review paper may potentially allow amassing a broad breadth of knowledge on both the relevant topic and previous research, as well as maintaining research ties to earlier studies.
Conclusion
While quantitative data is essential to utilize to create easily recognizable statistical evidence, which can later be finalized in graph form, the inclusion of other types of sources may be equally beneficial. The integration of diverse sources that vary in viewpoint and type could allow constructing a well-rounded argument that takes into consideration not only numerical benefits but also the existing quality of treatment. Therefore, using different types of systematic reviews to tackle a PICOT question, which compares the effectivity of CNB against opioids, allows drafting a paper that takes into consideration long-term as well as short-term treatment. Thus, the two used examples of systematic reviews help demonstrate the effect of source on conducting a well-rounded and literature-reliant study.
References
Bennett, M., Paice, J. A., & Wallace, M. (2018). Pain and opioids in cancer care: Benefits, risks, and alternatives. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 37, 705-713. Web.
Duffy, J. R. (2005). Critically appraising quantitative research. Nursing & Health Sciences, 7(4), 281-283. Web.
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Walters Kluwer.
Riva, J. J., Malik, K. M., Burnie, S. J., Endicott, A. R., & Busse, J. W. (2012). What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians. The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 56(3), 167-171. Web.
Tafelski, S., Hauser, W., & Schafer, M. (2016). Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cannabinoids for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting – A systematic review of systematic reviews. Der Schmerz, 30(1), 14-24. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.