Walden university library peer reviewed journals

Discussion: Using The Walden Library

Where can you find evidence to inform your thoughts and scholarly writing? Throughout your degree program, you will use research literature to explore ideas, guide your thinking, and gain new insights. As you search the research literature, it is important to use resources that are peer-reviewed and from scholarly journals. You may already have some favorite online resources and databases that you use or have found useful in the past. For this Discussion, you explore databases available through the Walden Library.

To Prepare:

Review the information presented in the Learning Resources for using the Walden Library, searching the databases, and evaluating online resources.
Begin searching for a peer-reviewed article that pertains to your practice area and interests you.
By Day 3 of Week 6
Post the following:

Using proper APA formatting, cite the peer-reviewed article you selected that pertains to your practice area and is of particular interest to you and identify the database that you used to search for the article. Explain any difficulties you experienced while searching for this article. Would this database be useful to your colleagues? Explain why or why not. Would you recommend this database? Explain why or why not.

By Day 6 of Week 6
Respond to at least two of your colleagues' posts by offering suggestions/strategies for working with this database from your own experience, or offering ideas for using alternative resources.

Discussion for reply one

The article I selected that pertains to my practice area and is of great interest to me is:

Men, Depression, and Coping: are we on the Right Patch? The citation of the article is as followed:

Whittle, E. L., Fogarty, A. S., Tugendrajch, S., Player, M. J., Christensen, H., Wilhelm, K., . . . Proudfoot, J. (2015). Men, depression, and coping: Are we on the right path? Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(4), 426-438. doi:10.1037/a0039024

I use the Walden University Library database for the article search using CINAHL Plus with Full Text, peer-reviewed article, evidence-based, full text within five years. I did not find any difficulties searching for this article. The database I believe would be useful to all my colleagues. It would be useful to my colleagues because it is trusted and well organized. The database is user friendly giving multiple options and resources for help. I would recommend this database, because of the integrity of the information sources. As a professional, and new to scholar writing, finding unbiased information for research is important to provide evidence-based research to my academic audience. This database is not open to everyone, it is private to Walden University students and faculty members. So, this database is secure with credible information. That is why I would recommend it.
References

JavaScript required. (n.d.). Retrieved October 06, 2020, from https://web-b-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=15

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Purpose, Audience, and Evidence [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Discussion for reply two

Initial Discussion Post

Suarez, L., Dunlay, S. M., Schettle, S. D., Stulak, J. M., & Staab, J. P. (2020). Associations of depressive symptoms of outcomes in patients implanted with left ventricular assist devices. General Hospital Psychiatry, 64, 93-98. https://doi.org/.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2019.12.005

As a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) coordinator, I am always interested in providing my patients with the best options for holistic care, specifically focused on their perception of health. Implantation of these devices is to alleviate symptoms of end stage heart failure and improve patients’ quality of life (Lee, 2018). Therefore, this article really stood out to me as a beneficial study that could be used to shape my practice.

I was able to access the Walden University Library Fundamentals of Library Research page and I watched the online tutorial of accessing databases (Instructional media: Fundamentals of library research, 2020). After that, I followed the link to the Nursing Databases page in the Library and saw the list of databases offered. I opted for one that included full text articles from the list of ‘Best Bets’ (Databases: A-Z, 2020). I chose CINAHL and typed in my subject, left ventricular assist device and quality of life, in the search bars (Databases: A-Z, 2020). I was easily brought to a results page of articles to choose from.

I didn’t have much issue accessing these articles and finding one that met my intended need. I would definitely recommend the use of CINAHL as it was easy to use, filtered results appropriately, and provided full text articles with citation. My only hesitation is that I’m not sure how easy it would have been to find the list of nursing databases if I hadn’t followed the exact link that was provided in the recommended reading. I will need to do some navigation myself from the main Walden University webpage to find the best way to navigate to the databases home page. Once I am able to find the way there, I think I will be using this database a lot for future referencing. It is really great that Walden gives us access to all these articles at our fingertips. It is so much easier than having to go to the library and thumb through text. I will most definitely recommend this way to everyone that needs to do research going forward!

References

Databases A-Z: Nursing. (2020). Walden University Library. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Instructional Media: Fundamentals of library research. (2020). Walden University Library. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/instructionalmedia/researchfundamentals

Lee, C. S., Gelow, J. M., Chien, C. V., Hiatt, S. O., Bidwell, J. T., Denfeld, Q. E., Grady, K. L., & Mudd, J. O. (2018). Implant Strategy-Specific Changes in Symptoms in Response to Left Ventricular Assist Devices. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 33(2), 144–151. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1097/JCN.0000000000000430

Suarez, L., Dunlay, S. M., Schettle, S. D., Stulak, J. M., & Staab, J. P. (2020). Associations of depressive symptoms of outcomes in patients implanted with left ventricular assist devices. General Hospital Psychiatry, 64, 93–98. https://doi.org/.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2019.12.005

Main Posting
--
Excellent 45 (45%) - 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Good 40 (40%) - 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Fair 35 (35%) - 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

Poor 0 (0%) - 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness
--
Excellent 10 (10%) - 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

Good 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Fair 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Poor 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response
--
Excellent 17 (17%) - 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good 15 (15%) - 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Fair 13 (13%) - 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor 0 (0%) - 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response
--
Excellent 16 (16%) - 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good 14 (14%) - 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Fair 12 (12%) - 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor 0 (0%) - 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Participation
--
Excellent 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Good 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Fair 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Poor 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.