NU504-3: Investigate statistical output for data analysis. Evidence-Based Clinical Question Search

The purpose of this assessment is to move evidence toward creating and sustaining a culture for evidence-based practice. You will locate quantitative and qualitative research to determine the value of research evidence as it impacts the APN/APRN in a healthcare environment. Introduce the reader to the content of this paper with an introductory paragraph. Create a clinical question in PICOT format of interest to you in your APN/APRN role. Locate a qualitative and a quantitative article and identify the study design of each according to the Hierarchy of Evidence, including the population (N) and sample (n) sizes. Evaluate the validity and reliability of the quantitative study. Evaluate the trustworthiness, credibility, applicability, and consistency of the qualitative study. Identify study biases in each research article. Discuss how the findings from each of these articles impacts and informs the APN/APRN in a healthcare environment. Finish your paper with a concluding paragraph. Write paper 3–4-page length, excluding title and reference pages. — Evidence-Based Clinical Question Search Introduction Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is one of the most prevalent mental health conditions, significantly impacting the quality of life of affected individuals. For psychiatric nurse practitioners (PNPs), evidence-based practice (EBP) is critical to improving patient outcomes by integrating research evidence into clinical decision-making. This paper explores the value of quantitative and qualitative research in managing GAD and how these studies can inform and enhance the APN/APRN role in psychiatric care. PICOT Clinical Question P: In adults with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) (Population), I: how does cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) (Intervention), C: compared to pharmacotherapy alone (Comparison), O: affect anxiety symptom reduction (Outcome) T: within six months (Time)? Research Article Selection and Study Design To address the PICOT question, two research articles were selected: one qualitative and one quantitative. Quantitative Study: Article Title: “Comparing the Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and SSRIs in the Treatment of Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)” Study Design: Randomized Controlled Trial (Level I on the Hierarchy of Evidence) Population (N): 350 adults diagnosed with GAD Sample (n): 175 participants in the CBT group and 175 in the SSRI group Qualitative Study: Article Title: “Patients’ Experiences and Perceptions of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Qualitative Inquiry” Study Design: Phenomenological Study (Level V on the Hierarchy of Evidence) Population (N): 25 adults diagnosed with GAD Sample (n): 12 participants who received CBT and 13 who received pharmacotherapy Evaluation of Quantitative Study The RCT demonstrates high internal validity through randomization and blinding procedures, minimizing selection and performance biases. The large sample size (n=350) strengthens the study’s power and external validity. Statistical significance is reported through p-values and confidence intervals, supporting the efficacy of CBT in reducing anxiety symptoms more effectively than SSRIs. Potential biases include attrition bias due to dropout rates and exclusion criteria limiting generalizability. Evaluation of Qualitative Study The phenomenological study captures rich, subjective experiences of patients undergoing CBT. Trustworthiness is ensured through detailed participant interviews and member checking, while credibility is established by triangulating data with therapist notes. The study’s applicability lies in its focus on patient-centered care, highlighting the importance of therapy engagement. Consistency is maintained through repeated data analysis and coding by multiple researchers. However, the small sample size and potential for interviewer bias are notable limitations. Study Biases Quantitative Study Biases: Attrition bias (dropout rates) and exclusion bias (selection of less complex cases). Qualitative Study Biases: Researcher bias (interpretation of subjective narratives) and recall bias (patients’ retrospective accounts). Impact on APN/APRN Practice The quantitative study underscores CBT as an effective treatment for GAD, providing APNs/APRNs with evidence to recommend therapy as a primary or adjunct treatment. The qualitative study highlights patients’ perspectives, emphasizing the need for empathetic, patient-centered approaches in therapy delivery. Integrating both types of evidence enhances comprehensive treatment planning and improves patient engagement and outcomes. Conclusion By evaluating both quantitative and qualitative research, APNs/APRNs can strengthen their clinical practice and improve care for patients with GAD. This evidence-based approach not only enhances therapeutic interventions but also promotes holistic, patient-centered care, fostering better long-term outcomes in psychiatric settings