Adherence to Therapeutic Regime in Persons with Type 2 Diabetes
Prepare this assignment as a 1,500-1,750 word paper using the instructor feedback from the previous course assignments and the guidelines below.
PICOT Question
Revise the PICOT question you wrote in the Topic 1 assignment using the feedback you received from your instructor.
The final PICOT question will provide a framework for your capstone project (the project students must complete during their final course in the RN-BSN program of study).
Research Critiques
In the Topic 2 and Topic 3 assignments, you completed a qualitative and quantitative research critique on two articles for each type of study (4 articles total). Use the feedback you received from your instructor on these assignments to finalize the critical analysis of each study by making appropriate revisions.
The completed analysis should connect to your identified practice problem of interest that is the basis for your PICOT question.
Refer to "Research Critiques and PICOT Guidelines - Final Draft." Questions under each heading should be addressed as a narrative in the structure of a formal paper.
Proposed Evidence-Based Practice Change
Discuss the link between the PICOT question, the research articles, and the nursing practice problem you identified. Include relevant details and supporting explanation and use that information to propose evidence-based practice changes.
General Requirements
Prepare this assignment according to the APA 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.
Final Draft: Research Critique and Picot Statement
Student Full Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Full Title
Instructor Full Name
Due Date
Final Draft: Research Critique and Picot Statement
Nursing Practice Problem and PICOT Question
My identified nursing practice problem is determining the impact of nutrition education, with a food-based approach, on glycemic levels among children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes compared to the typical nutrition education programs. My PICOT question is: Does providing education focusing on food alternatives for newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients reduce AIC levels compared to the current education program?
Background
Four articles (two quantitative studies and two qualitative studies) will be used in this research critique. The article "Adherence to the Therapeutic Regime in Persons with Type 2 Diabetes" by Albuquerque et al. (2015) is a quantitative study that investigates adherence to prescribed therapeutic regimens among patients with type 2 diabetes and also identifies clinical, psychological, and sociodemographic factors that affect conformance to the therapy. Conversely, the article “Prevalence of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes among Children and Adolescents From 2001 to 2009" by Dabelea et al. (2014) is a quantitative study that estimates variations in the incidence rate of both type 1 and 2 diabetes among US youth in terms of race/ethnicity, sex, and age between 2001 and 2009.
On the other hand, the article "Children with Diabetes: Perceptions of Supports for Self-Management at School" by Nabors et al. (2003) is a qualitative study that examines the perspectives of children diagnosed with diabetes concerning social support from school nurses, friends, and teachers in managing their condition. Conversely, the article "Teenagers with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus as a Hidden Population: A Qualitative Study of the Representations and Experiences Related to the Disease in Mazatlan, Mexico" by Llanes-Diaz & Hernandez-Montoya (2017) is a qualitative study that analyzes the viewpoints of adolescents diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and living in Mazatlan, Mexico, have of the condition.
The article by Albuquerque et al. (2015) will help identify clinical, psychological, and sociodemographic factors that affect adherence to nutrition recommendations among diabetic children with type 2 diabetes. This article is particularly insightful on how such aspects as education, family support, age, family income, parental supervision, duration of disease, geographical distance from health facilities, and mental health affect the compliance of diabetic patients to the therapeutic regime. Conversely, the article by Dabelea et al. (2014) will help understand variations in the incidence rate of 2 diabetes among US youth in terms of race/ethnicity, sex, and age. This information will help determine the importance of culturally tailored nutritional programs.
On the other hand, the article by Nabors et al. (2003) will provide valuable details about young children’s perceptions of living with diabetes, primarily how family, friends, nurses, and teachers can provide social support. The article will also assist in understanding how educators and nurses can initiate educational programs that facilitate nutrition management of diabetes and improve safety and support at school. Conversely, the article by Llanes-Diaz & Hernandez-Montoya (2017) will provide valuable insights into the experiences and perceptions of adolescents diagnosed with diabetes concerning self-care practices, gender, knowledge of the disease, family support, and significance of the disease. The article will help highlight the importance of considering gender and family support when designing nutritional management programs.
The comparison group used in the study by Albuquerque et al. (2015) differs from my PICOT question. It entailed a patient population with type 2 diabetes only, aged between 40 and 85 years. In contrast, my PICOT question focused on children of both genders with type 1 and 2 diabetes. Conversely, the comparison group used in the Dabelea et al. (2014) study was relatively similar to my PICOT question. It entailed both male and female youths younger than 20, with type 1 and 2 diabetes across all racial/ethnic groups.
The comparison group used in the study by Nabors et al. (2003) is fairly different from my PICOT question in that although the study sample consisted of children of different ages and races/ethnicities, the study focused on children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes rather than those with type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, the comparison group used in the study by Llanes-Diaz & Hernandez-Montoya (2017) is relatively similar to my PICOT question since it involved children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. However, the study did not consider racial disparities between participants.
Method of Study
The study by Albuquerque et al. (2015) employed a quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional, correlational, and non-experimental methodological approach using a non-probabilistic sample of 102 people, aged between 40 and 85 years, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. It used five tools (Diabetes Self-care Scale; sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire; Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale; a questionnaire investigating patients' knowledge of diabetes; and the HbA1c test) to measure the impact of clinical, psychological, and sociodemographic factors on therapeutic regime adherence. One benefit of this methodology is that it adequately measured the effect of several critical variables on patient adherence to treatment regimes. However, the study only focused on an adult population, limiting its applicability to my PICOT study involving children patients.
On the other hand, the study by Dabelea et al. (2014) collected race intercensal diabetes prevalence data between 2001 and 2009 for youths below the age of 20. This data was collected across four states and several American Indian reservations in New Mexico and Arizona. Statistical tests involving a 2-sided skew-corrected inverted score test as well as the capture-recapture method were employed. The SAS version 9.3 was then used to conduct a global logarithmic-linear model and maximum likelihood analysis to determined pooled estimates. The ...