Please complete this assignment on the worksheet attached. 

1. Choose the ONE systematic review topic that is of most interest to you, or most relevant to your practice situation, from the required List of Approved Systematic Reviews (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..

2. Follow the grading criteria below to formulate your practice issue, which must be based on the topic of the systematic review you have selected.

3. Download the required Milestone 1 Practice Issue and Evidence Summary Worksheets (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (both worksheets appear in ONE form) to document the practice issue presented and approved by your instructor in the Week 2 Discussions.

4. You are required to complete the form using the productivity tools required by Chamberlain University, which is Microsoft Office Word 2013 (or later version), or Windows and Office 2011 (or later version) for MAC. You must save the file in the “.docx” format. Do NOT save as Word Pad. A later version of the productivity tool includes Office 365, which is available to Chamberlain students for FREE by downloading from the student portal at http://my.chamberlain.edu (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Click on the envelope at the top of the page.

5. Your practice issue will be the same for all three Milestone assignments in this course.

6. Please type your answers directly into the worksheet.

Evidence Summary Worksheet Directions

1. Develop an evidence summary by following the grading criteria below.

2. Document this on the evidence summary portion of the worksheet.

3. You will use this worksheet to incorporate your evidence summary into your Week 4 Milestone 2 assignment.

4. Please type your answers directly into the worksheet.

THE CHOSEN REVIEW SYSTEM

Obstetrics/Delivery

McFadden, A., Gavine, A., Renfrew, M. J., Wade, A., Buchanan, P., Taylor, J. L., … MacGillivray, S. (2017). Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD001141. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001141.pub5

                     Abstract

Background

There is extensive evidence of important health risks for infants and mothers related to not breastfeeding. In 2003, the World Health Organization recommended that infants be breastfed exclusively until six months of age, with breastfeeding continuing as an important part of the infant’s diet until at least two years of age. However, current breastfeeding rates in many countries do not reflect this recommendation.

Objectives

To describe forms of breastfeeding support which have been evaluated in controlled studies, the timing of the interventions and the settings in which they have been used.

To examine the effectiveness of different modes of offering similar supportive interventions (for example, whether the support offered was proactive or reactive, face-to-face or over the telephone), and whether interventions containing both antenatal and postnatal elements were more effective than those taking place in the postnatal period alone.

To examine the effectiveness of different care providers and (where information was available) training.

To explore the interaction between background breastfeeding rates and effectiveness of support.

Search methods

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (29 February 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing extra support for healthy breastfeeding mothers of healthy term babies with usual maternity care.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

Main results

This updated review includes 100 trials involving more than 83,246 mother-infant pairs of which 73 studies contribute data (58 individually-randomised trials and 15 cluster-randomised trials). We considered that the overall risk of bias of trials included in the review was mixed. Of the 31 new studies included in this update, 21 provided data for one or more of the primary outcomes. The total number of mother-infant pairs in the 73 studies that contributed data to this review is 74,656 (this total was 56,451 in the previous version of this review). The 73 studies were conducted in 29 countries. Results of the analyses continue to confirm that all forms of extra support analyzed together showed a decrease in cessation of ‘any breastfeeding’, which includes partial and exclusive breastfeeding (average risk ratio (RR) for stopping any breastfeeding before six months 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 51 studies) and for stopping breastfeeding before four to six weeks (average RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence, 33 studies). All forms of extra support together also showed a decrease in cessation of exclusive breastfeeding at six months (average RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence, 46 studies) and at four to six weeks (average RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89; moderate quality, 32 studies). We downgraded evidence to moderate-quality due to very high heterogeneity.

We investigated substantial heterogeneity for all four outcomes with subgroup analyses for the following covariates: who delivered care, type of support, timing of support, background breastfeeding rate and number of postnatal contacts. Covariates were not able to explain heterogeneity in general. Though the interaction tests were significant for some analyses, we advise caution in the interpretation of results for subgroups due to the heterogeneity. Extra support by both lay and professionals had a positive impact on breastfeeding outcomes. Several factors may have also improved results for women practising exclusive breastfeeding, such as interventions delivered with a face-to-face component, high background initiation rates of breastfeeding, lay support, and a specific schedule of four to eight contacts. However, because within-group heterogeneity remained high for all of these analyses, we advise caution when making specific conclusions based on subgroup results. We noted no evidence for subgroup differences for the any breastfeeding outcomes.

Authors’ conclusions

When breastfeeding support is offered to women, the duration and exclusivity of breastfeeding is increased. Characteristics of effective support include: that it is offered as standard by trained personnel during antenatal or postnatal care, that it includes ongoing scheduled visits so that women can predict when support will be available, and that it is tailored to the setting and the needs of the population group. Support is likely to be more effective in settings with high initiation rates. Support may be offered either by professional or lay/peer supporters, or a combination of both. Strategies that rely mainly on face-to-face support are more likely to succeed with women practising exclusive breastfeeding.

 

Save Link Assignment Literature Review  View Rubric Due Date: Mar 10, 2018        Max Points: 100  Details:  

While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone change proposal project, the literature review enables students to map out and move into the active planning and development stages of the project.  

A literature review analyzes how current research supports the PICOT, as well as identifies what is known and what is not known in the evidence. Students will use the information from the earlier PICOT Statement Paper and Literature Evaluation Table assignments to develop a 750-1,000 word review that includes the following sections:      

1-Title page     

2-Introduction section     

3-A comparison of research questions     

4-A comparison of sample populations     

5-A comparison of the limitations of the study     

6-A conclusion section, incorporating recommendations for further research  

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.  This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.  You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

Apply Rubrics 

Literature Review    1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less than Satisfactory 75.00% 3 Satisfactory 79.00% 4 Good 89.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% 80.0 % Content  10.0 % Introduction An introduction is not present. An introduction is present, but it does not relate to the body of the paper. An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. There is nothing in the introduction to entice the reader to continue reading. An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction provides incentive for the reader to continue reading. An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction is intriguing and encourages the reader to continue reading. 20.0 % Comparison of Research Questions No comparison of research questions is presented. A comparison of research questions is presented, but it is not valid. A cursory though valid comparison of research questions is presented. A moderately thorough and valid comparison of research questions is presented. A reflective and insightful comparison of research questions is presented. 20.0 % Comparison of Sample Populations No comparison of sample populations is presented. A comparison of sample populations is presented, but it is not valid. A cursory though valid comparison of sample populations is presented. A moderately thorough and valid comparison of sample populations is presented. A reflective and insightful comparison of sample populations is presented. 20.0 % Comparison of the Limitations of the Study No comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. A comparison of the limitations of the study is presented, but it is not valid. A cursory though valid comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. A moderately thorough and valid comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. A reflective and insightful comparison of the limitations of the study is presented. 10.0 % Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research No conclusion and recommendations for further research are presented. A conclusion and recommendations for further research are presented, but they are not valid. A conclusion and recommendations for further research are valid, but they are cursory. A conclusion and recommendations for further research are valid and moderately thorough. A conclusion and recommendations for further research are reflective and insightful. 15.0 % Organization and Effectiveness  5.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. 5.0 % Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. 5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 5.0 % Format  2.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct. 3.0 % Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. 100 % Total Weightage

 

Question 1: Art of the AmericasThis week, we studied a vast array of cultural objects produced in North, South, and Central America prior to 1492. Select one object from each of the following cultures: Aztec, Inca, and North (Native) American.First, identify each object, including its name, date, medium, and location/geographical region of origin.Then, in a minimum of 2 well-developed paragraphs, address the following questions for each object:What are the unique and specific visual characteristics of the object? How are these visual characteristics typical of the time and place in which the object was created?How does meaning or function of the object reflect the culture in which it was produced?

Question 2:

 Neoclassicism, Romanticism, and RealismBeginning in the 19th century, artistic movements carry the suffix “-ism” to their name. Originally derived from Ancient Greek, “-isms” is appended to a word that then reflects a philosophical concept. In the case of art, it comes to mean the philosophy or approach to art that binds a group of artists together.Select one representative example from each of the following “-isms” studied this week: Neoclassicism, Romanticism, and Realism. In 3 well-developed paragraphs, discuss:What is the philosophy or approach to art that is defined by the –ism.What are the specific visual characteristics of your example that are representative of the overall style of the –ism?How does the specific subject of your selected work reflect the philosophy of the –ism?Be sure to explain your ideas clearly and support them by discussing specific works of art that you have read about this week, talking about how they illustrate and support your ideas.

 

Assignment: Application: Taking a Stand

 

 

 

 

Write a 4 to 5 page paper (page count does not include title and reference page) that addresses the following: APA style and 5-6 academic references that are led than 5 years old

 

• Introduce the conceptual frameworks of the ethical constructs of ethics, moral, or legal standards and the purpose of the paper.
• Consider  an ethical, moral, or legal dilemma that you have encountered in your work environment and describe it.
• Analyze the moral, ethical, and legal implications utilized in this situation. Describe your role as a moral agent or advocate for this specific issue.
• Consider your leadership styles identified by your self-assessment and determine if they act as a barrier or facilitation during this dilemma. 

 

The School of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references

 

 

 

• Introduction

• Ethical Framework for Decision Making – four ethical frameworks: utilitarianism, duty-based reasoning, right-based reasoning, intuitionism

• Dilemma at the Workplace –a nursing example and my role as the moral agent or advocate

• Self-Assessment – Keirsey Temperament Sorter questionnaire

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review the SPSS output file which reports the results of the related samples t-test to compare the number of U.S. states where each brand was sold in 2008 with the number of U.S. states where those same brands were sold in 2012. For each brand, there is one value for the number of states in 2008 and another value for the number of states in 2012, making this a repeated measure.

 

Answer the following questions based on your observations of the SPSS output file:

 

1. What was the mean number of U.S. states in which all of the beer brands were sold in in 2008?
2. What was the mean number of U.S. states in which all of the beer brands were sold in in 2012?
3. Was there a significant difference in the number of states in which these beer brands were sold in 2008 versus 2012? Report the results of the t-test as follows: t(df value) = ___, and p-value.