Discussion: Searching Databases
When you decide to purchase a new car, you first decide what is important to you. If mileage and dependability are the important factors, you will search for data focused more on these factors and less on color options and sound systems.
The same holds true when searching for research evidence to guide your clinical inquiry and professional decisions. Developing a formula for an answerable, researchable question that addresses your need will make the search process much more effective. One such formula is the PICO(T) format.
In this Discussion, you will transform a clinical inquiry into a searchable question in PICO(T) format, so you can search the electronic databases more effectively and efficiently. You will share this PICO(T) question and examine strategies you might use to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question.
To Prepare:
Review the materials offering guidance on using databases, performing keyword searches, and developing PICO(T) questions provided in the Resources.
Review the Resources for guidance and develop a PICO(T) question of interest to you for further study.
By Day 3 of Week 4
Post your PICO(T) question, the search terms used, and the names of at least two databases used for your PICO(T) question. Then, describe your search results in terms of the number of articles returned on original research and how this changed as you added search terms using your Boolean operators. Finally, explain strategies you might make to increase the rigor and effectiveness of a database search on your PICO(T) question. Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 6 of Week 4
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days and provide further suggestions on how their database search might be improved.
Searching Databases
PICOT
Are the elderly (P) who are staying with their family (I) at a lower risk of terminal illness (O) as compared to those living in home for the elderly(C) during the ages of 65 and above (T)?
Databases
EBCOHOST
CINAHL database
In my first search there were many resources that I found approximately 15 articles, however, the articles were not directly related to the aspects that I was looking for. However, as I added more keywords I got fewer results that were much more related to the issue that I was looking for. I learnt that having more keywords in the search can help to get more relevant results and fewer articles. Besides, Boolean helped to narrow the research and also provide more relevant results.
One of the strategies that can help to increase the rigor of a search is the use of mind mapping. Mind mapping the topic might help to generate ideas and visualize various aspect of the research topic (Aromataris & Riitano, 2014). It also helps to narrow or focus the topic so that it can produce much more relevant results (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2015). The mind mapping also helps to develop the key words that can be used to make the search more productive.
The other approach is to use the search strategy builder. The tool enables one to enter the keywords in order to produce a search statement with Boolean operators (Peters et al., 2015). With the tool one can now use the key words that were developed during the visualization process. Therefore, using these strategies can immensely help in making sure that one makes a search that can produce more effective outcomes.
PICOT is an effective strategy that can help one to narrow down a search and effectively get the required resources. However, using other strategies such a mind mapping and strategy builder can be effective in making the research more productive.
References
Aromataris, E., & Riitano, D. (2014). Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. Am J Nurs, 114(5), 49-56.
Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). On being ‘systematic’in literature reviews. In Formulating Research Methods for Information Systems (pp. 48-78). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Peters, M. D., Godfrey, C. M., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Parker, D., & Soares, C. B. (2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. International journal of evidence-based healthcare, 13(3), 141-146.
References
Kiani, M. J. E. (2016). U.S. Patent No. 9,226,696. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Robert, G., Cornwell, J., Locock, L., Purushotham, A., Sturmey, G., & Gager, M. (2015). Patients and staff as codesigners of healthcare services. Bmj, 350, g7714.
Spath, P., & Kelly, D. L. (2017). Applying quality management in healthcare: A systems approach. Chicago: Health Administration Press.
