Step 0: Cultivate a spirit of inquiry – choosing a topic
- What went so well with my team was that we knew before starting this project we worked well together. It was made clear we all wanted to do a topic that was not in anyone interest and considered outside all of our boxes. We got the idea to research non-pharmacological therapies for amputee patients and the phantom pain they experience. We indeed faced some challenges regarding this topic. Since the topic is pretty broad we needed to be able to narrow it down and figure out the right direction to go. It was tough to find articles that discussed this phantom pain that is experienced and we needed to narrow down to one therapy that eases the pain. We discovered that mirror therapy compared to non-mirror therapy was an excellent choice and went for it!
Step 1: Ask the burning clinical question in PICOT format
- All three of us were fairly educated on formatting and creating PICOT questions, so there was not much difficulty with that area. One challenge we came across was just getting the wording of the PICOT question to make sense, and Professor Kramlich assisted in that.
Step 2: Search for and collect the most relevant evidence – finding articles
- Once we were able to decide that mirror therapy was a good research area for phantom pain in amputee patients there were countless articles to choose from. The biggest challenge we faced was finding three separate articles that worked well together using different methods of study but the same treatment. We wanted relevant information that would be useful to us in our paper, and of course we needed to be able to understand the material in the article as well. As each of us found articles we shared our findings and discussed which were the best to choose.
Step 3: Critically appraise the evidence – Part I (rapid critical appraisal)
- Since there were three of us, and three articles we each took one head on and read the full articles and highlighted areas of importance. We were challenged with the concepts of appraisal and seemed help from the professor to get a better understanding of the types of appraisals.
Step 3: Critically appraise the evidence – Part II (evidence table & annotated bibliography)
- Again, we each had our own article to review and we talked very frequently to discuss each article so we all understood what was going on in each. After the professor reviewed our annotated bibliography we were then aware that part did not flow as it should have so we went to SASC to meet with a writing tutor on how to better flow that area of our paper. The SASC tutor also mentioned to us the concept of writing in the same tense throughout the entire paper, so we were taught that concept and changed it throughout the paper.
Step 3: Critically appraise the evidence – Part III (synthesis – writing the paper)
- The team was able to schedule a zoom call together, as we had done so well once a week throughout this process, and we wrote the entire synthesis together. It was awesome to spend the time together and just get it done. Unfortunately the SASC tutor had pointed us in the wrong direction of past/present tense information that our professor made us aware of so we needed to go back through the entire paper and put it in the correct tense.
Final Paper Reflection
- I enjoyed writing this paper, more than other opportunities so far in my college career. I was lucky enough to have a Professor as organized as I am who was able to, on a week-by-week basis, explain very well what was to be done and how it were to be done. I learnt a lot more about APA formatting than I had known so it was amazing to expand my knowledge in that area more. Although attacking this project through zoom calling was not preferred, it is what the world is doing now in this unfortunate crisis and we made the best of it! Not only from this paper, but from this class I learned so much more in how to read and take in information from articles. The techniques I was taught in research will most certainly benefit me in my nursing career and I am much more confident in conducting research.
