Critical Appraisal Tools and Reporting Guidelines for Evidence-Based Practice

Background: Nurses engaged in evidence-based practice (EBP) have two important sets of tools: Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines. Critical appraisal tools facilitate the appraisal process and guide a consumer of evidence through an objective, analytical, evaluation process. Reporting guidelines, checklists of items that should be included in a publication or report, ensure that the project or guidelines are reported on with clarity, completeness, and transparency. Purpose The primary purpose of this paper is to help nurses understand the difference between critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines. A secondary purpose is to help nurses locate the appropriate tool for the appraisal or reporting of evidence. Methods A systematic search was conducted to find commonly used critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines for EBP in nursing. Rationale This article serves as a resource to help nurse navigate the often-overwhelming terrain of critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines, and will help both novice and experienced consumers of evidence more easily select the appropriate tool(s) to use for critical appraisal and reporting of evidence. Having the skills to select the appropriate tool or guideline is an essential part of meeting EBP competencies for both practicing registered nurses and advanced practice nurses (Melnyk & Gallagher-Ford, 2015; Melnyk, Gallagher-Ford, & Fineout-Overholt, 2017). Results Nine commonly used critical appraisal tools and eight reporting guidelines were found and are described in this manuscript. Specific steps for selecting an appropriate tool as well as examples of each tool\u27s use in a publication are provided. Linking Evidence to Action Practicing registered nurses and advance practice nurses must be able to critically appraise and disseminate evidence in order to meet EBP competencies. This article is a resource for understanding the difference between critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines, and identifying and accessing appropriate tools or guidelines

Selecting a journal for your manuscript: A 4-step process

Background Identifying the most appropriate journal for a manuscript can be challenging for both experienced and novice nurse authors. Several factors should be considered when selecting a journal (e.g., peer-reviewed, target audience, type of manuscripts accepted, type of copyright and publishing model used). Selecting the most appropriate journal can save time for both authors and publishers. Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide nurses, particularly those new to scholarly publishing, with clear, plain language guidance on the processes and considerations involved in selecting a journal for publication. Methods A librarian and a nurse educator collaborated to develop an innovative 4-step process to help authors select the most appropriate journal for their manuscript. Results A case study is used to illustrate the process, and a worksheet is provided to guide the reader through the selection of an appropriate journal for their manuscript. Conclusions This manuscript can be used by individual nurse authors to find the most appropriate journal for their manuscript, as a teaching tool for nurse educators, and for others mentoring nurse authors who are new to publishing

The meaning of evidence and nonmaleficence: cases from nursing

In our increasingly diverse environment, nurses are obligated to question the meaning of “evidence” when history has shown that our emphasis on the empirical and quantitative data has shaped our biases against knowledge unknown to us. This bias has limited our ability to provide patient or person-centered care, and can be harmful to patients. Nurses are encouraged to reflect on what evidence means in their practice, and to make sure harm is not caused to patients by dismissing evidence yet unknown to us or accepting “truths” not fully understood by us. The authors use composite case studies to share experiences from their clinical practice on how “evidence,” or lack of, can challenge our obligation to “do no harm.” Curiosity and skepticism should guide nursing practice, and every nurse should strive to contribute to questioning accepted practice and finding answers to the unknown to meet the needs of our diverse patients

Body appreciation around the world: Measurement invariance of the Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2) across 65 nations, 40 languages, gender identities, and age

The Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2) is a widely used measure of a core facet of the positive body image construct. However, extant research concerning measurement invariance of the BAS-2 across a large number of nations remains limited. Here, we utilised the Body Image in Nature (BINS) dataset - with data collected between 2020 and 2022 - to assess measurement invariance of the BAS-2 across 65 nations, 40 languages, gender identities, and age groups. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis indicated that full scalar invariance was upheld across all nations, languages, gender identities, and age groups, suggesting that the unidimensional BAS-2 model has widespread applicability. There were large differences across nations and languages in latent body appreciation, while differences across gender identities and age groups were negligible-to-small. Additionally, greater body appreciation was significantly associated with higher life satisfaction, being single (versus being married or in a committed relationship), and greater rurality (versus urbanicity). Across a subset of nations where nation-level data were available, greater body appreciation was also significantly associated with greater cultural distance from the United States and greater relative income inequality. These findings suggest that the BAS-2 likely captures a near-universal conceptualisation of the body appreciation construct, which should facilitate further cross-cultural research