Organizational Factors Associated With Collaboration Within Fortune 500 Firms Essay

Analyze and critically appraise evidence-based literature to support the solution to the identified problem. A minimum of (5) articles must be identified. This may include guidelines from the National Guideline Clearinghouse, Joanna Briggs Institute, or a review from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review.

The purpose of a systematic review is to attempt to find, evaluate and synthesize high quality research relevant to the research question. A systematic review uses carefully developed data collection and sampling procedures that are put in place in advance as a protocol. (Polit, 2012). A systematic review must contain the following: a clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, an explicit search strategy, systematic coding and analysis of included studies, and a meta-analysis if possible. (Hemingway & Brereton, 2009). Systematic reviews are conducted by nurse researchers to avoid reaching incorrect or misleading conclusions that

The current review was managed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) and established guidelines for narrative synthesis by Popay et al. (2006).

It synthesizes the results of various primary studies by using strategies that reduces biases and random errors. These reviews follow a strict scientific design and provide consistent estimates about the effects of interventions, therefore, conclusions are defensible. Systematic reviews shows where knowledge is lacking and can be used to guide future research. These reviews are usually carried out in the areas of clinical tests such as diagnostic, screening and prognostic; public health interventions; economic evaluations; adverse effects and how and why interventions work. Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews undertaken by Cochrane Collaboration members, aims to help people to make well-informed decisions about healthcare by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare

The study was a systematic review of scientific papers selected by a search of the SciELO, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and LILACS-BIREME databases. Among the 2169 articles found, 12 studies proved relevant to the issue and presented an evidence strength rating of B. No publications rated evidence strength A. Seven of the studies analyzed were prospective cohorts and 5 were cross-sectional studies.

Systematic reviews allow researchers to to determine the best research evidence to address a health care situation. In disease management and casemanagement specialities, the clincial guidelines for managing chronic health conditions are developed from Systemic reviews ( Groves, et al., 2013). Meta- analysis involves the use of results from previous studies; it involves quasi-experimental and experimental studies and stastical analysis are applied to provide the most desired evidence for an intervention, whiles Meta synthesis uses qualitative studies which main focus is interpretation of a specific study for use as evidenced research (Groves, et al., 2013). Lasty, mixed methods systematic review involves the utilization of independent studies which are conducted through narrative and invloves both quantitative and qualitative methods(Groves, et al.,

The topic in this systematic review is clearly defined in the abstract & the introduction. Yes, the search for studies and other evidence was comprehensive and unbiased as it was able to be. Strict criteria were followed as described in Figure 1.

Both clinicians who are enquiring clinical questions and researchers who are conducting in-depth searches for systematic reviews come across a few

We used a broad range of keywords in our search strategy, including free text in addition to the controlled vocabulary terms of individual databases. This is especially important for CPWs where the terminology is inconsistent. The search strategy was developed with the assistance of an information specialist. We also screened relevant publications from the EPOC (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group) Register of Studies.40 Bibliographies of CPW systematic reviews were also searched for missed publications. A recent study suggests that English language restriction does not introduce systematic bias into systematic reviews with meta-analysis.39 Therefore, we restricted the language of publication to either English or French. Studies identified from the search strategy were entered into the reference manager Endnote® (version X4, Thomson-Reuters). They were then manually

The first point is discovery research, followed by evidence summary, translation guidelines, practice integration, and process or outcome evaluation. Discovery research is comprised of research results generated through primary research studies. Evidence summaries take the bulk of research knowledge and summarize it into a single, meaningful statement. It also generates knowledge simultaneously by combining all the findings. Forms of evidence summaries include systematic reviews, reviews of literature, and meta-analyses. Furthermore, they have several advantages, including reducing large quantities into a manageable form, increasing power in suggesting the cause and effect relationship, and increases efficiency between research and clinical implementation (Stevens, 2012). The next points, translation to guidelines and practice integration, are the two crucial stages in bringing evidence to practice. Translation to guidelines involves summarizing evidence in a cost and time effective way to clinicians. These well-developed recommendations, termed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), consociate clinical recommendation and supporting evidence or recommendations. Leading into the following step, integration involves change of practice through an individual and/or organizational scale. Process, or outcome evaluation, is the final point in

Types of studies. Studies were included if they are quantitative, published within the last ten years (2007 to 2017), and from peer-reviewed journals. These criteria were established to ensure the timeliness and credibility of the sample studies. No restriction on language was set to ensure that a wider scope of studies can be included.

After reviewing many studies, the five most relevant were: two studies (Cahill, Stamilio, Odibo, Peipert, Ratcliffe, Stevens, Sammel, & Macones, (2006);

Our data analysis process will be iterative, designed to ensure that our interpretations and understandings are thoroughly evidence-based. In practice, this means a constant process of collecting data, carrying out preliminary analysis, and using emerging evidence to guide the next steps in data collection and continuing this pattern until the data collection and analysis process is complete. This approach will ensure that the final assessment report will reflect data and information grounded in reality. Some of the key data collection methods for the proposed work

The research methodology used in this study is a systematic review, a “method of making sense of large bodies of information, and a means of contributing to the answers to questions about what works and what does not” (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006, p. 2). According to Tranfield, Denyer and Smart (2003), “systematic reviews differ from traditional narrative reviews by adopting a replicable, scientific and transparent process that aims to minimize bias through exhaustive literature searches of published and unpublished studies and by providing an audit trail of the reviewers decisions, procedures and conclusions ” (p. 209). In the systematic review, all relevant studies on a specified topic area were synthesized (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). This method asset with making recommendations based on the evidence.

To help decide which studies are credible and to help with organising the review it may be helpful to make a