Clinical settings are often faced with practice challenges that require specialized interventions. The interventions are geared towards problems identification and devising ways to fix them. This is made possible by finding and examining the study materials to get the best evidence. The current capstone project change proposal considers the credibility and reliability of the research materials used to develop the best evidence-based interventions. This paper will discuss the two main GCU Library scholarly databases as sources of the best evidence-based research materials and how they compare to Google scholar or any general internet search.
The first GCU Library database that I will be using to get the best research information is the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature. CINAHL is one of the largest and most world’s most detailed databases for nursing research, with about 768 complete nursing journals and at least 5,000 indexed journals (Hopia & Heikkilä, 2019). These journals have been acquired from nursing and other healthcare sectors.
The other GCU database of medical literature that I also intend to use to get the best research-based articles for the capstone project is PubMed. Nursing, medicine, the healthcare system, and preclinical sciences are among the medical field research materials contained in the database. There are many reasons why PubMed is categorized as the world’s best research database. One reason is that it is a free database created by the Library of Medicine in the US. Also, it does not require log-in details for one to use. MEDLINE, journals, and books have over 32 million citations for biomedical literature. This database’s have citations with links taking you to the original contents in PubMed Center and publisher websites.
There are several reasons why CINAHIL and PubMed are better sources of research materials than Google scholar or any other internet searching sites. First, is their capacity to filter your search information. Search options such as the use of full text, peer-reviewed, and publication date are just a few of the filters available in both CINAHIL and PubMed to help you narrow down your search. Google Scholar, on the other hand, lacks the filter features, making it impossible to narrow the search (Martn-Martn et al., 2021). As a result, searching Google Scholar yields loads of search results and materials that may not be relevant to you.
Creating citations is another important feature that makes a big difference between the two GCU Library databases and Google scholar search databases. Although Google Scholar can help with citation generation; it is outdated, resulting in outdated citations that do not match APA 7th edition citation requirements. As a result, compared to a generic internet search, using CINAHL and PubMed is likely to yield more accurate results.
Finally, the legitimacy of the data in the databases is critical. There is a great need to get information from trusted sources. Getting more accurate evidence-based information for the current practice change using google scholar is not guaranteed unlike when using CINAHIL and PubMed.
In conclusion, the capstone change project proposal helps in raising important concerns regarding the generation and use of evidence that informs clinical interventions. The element of credibility and reliability of materials used in addressing the immerging health challenges is critical. CINAHIL and PubMed are GCU Library databases that guarantee accurate, credible, and reliable materials for quality research work compared to google scholar or general internet searches.
Hopia, H., & Heikkilä, J. (2019). Nursing research priorities based on CINAHL database: A scoping review. Nursing open, 7(2), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.428
Katz, D. L., Karlsen, M. C., Chung, M., Shams-White, M. M., Green, L. W., Fielding, J., … & Willett, W. (2019). Hierarchies of evidence applied to lifestyle Medicine (HEALM): introduction of a strength-of-evidence approach based on a methodological systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0811-z
Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4