Synthesis of Evidence – Intervention

Do you have evidence to support the intervention you selected to address your identified gap or problem? For this assignment, write a synthesis of the evidence contained in six references related to your selected intervention. In Unit 3 you developed a synthesis of evidence related to your gap or problem. In this assignment the focus must be on your intervention. The six references you select must be different from the references you used for the Unit 3 assignment. The references can be things like primary research studies, systematic reviews, or evidence-based practice guidelines, such as recommendations from AHRQ or CDC. The evidence can be no more than five years old, except for seminal works such as models, theories, et cetera. This assignment will help you build the review of literature you must include in your DPP Part 2, where 20 references will be required.

Note that a synthesis is not an article-by-article summary, but rather an integration of the content of the articles you select. Address similarities and differences of opinion inherent in the sources. Your six references must support the intervention. The evidence must show your intervention is effective at addressing your gap in practice.

Consider the following when reviewing the literature: date of publication, primary purpose of the study, methodology and design used, type of data analyses, significant findings, and how the findings relate to your intervention.

Does the evidence answer your PICO(T) question? Does the evidence clearly support your intervention(s)?

Remember, when you analyze and synthesize information or evidence, you are making conclusions about it. Consider the following when analyzing and synthesizing the evidence:

Is it recent? This is especially important if the evidence is data-driven.

How logical is it?

What is the experience of the authors or practitioners who created it?

What evidence challenges it?

How important is it?

How relevant is it to my study focus?

What is its significance?

In what ways is this piece of evidence consistent with other evidence I have collected, and in what ways is it different?