Category: LDRS591 (Page 1 of 2)

No article can or should be taken at face value. Each section must be looked at in detail. There are several ways to increase the level of trust that one has when reading research. The two most important are that the study is peer reviewed and it is published in a reputable journal. Both will increase the brain power and expected scientific rigor behind the question being researched.  Peers are usually familiar with the subject matter, what has been studied to date and if the study design makes sense. Consideration for the authors and peers involved should include questioning conflict of interest. Do the authors or peers have any financial, reputation or other interest in the outcome of the study. Second, is the paper published in a reputable journal. There are different levels of scientific rigor and reputation that journals have and should be weighted accordingly.

Competency builds over time to increase knowledge, conduct literature searches and interaction with those in the field. The question being researched should be of interest to the peer group as well as a wider audience and has the potential to affirm previous studies, increase knowledge and have some outputs with the information gained.

Honesty and moral integrity are important aspects. The article by Resnick and Belluz (2018) discusses the example of studies being retracted from highly credible journals and offers a cautionary tale of some of the challenges of research. On the surface the studies looked high quality, conducted by a tenured professor at a prestigious university. Perhaps it was pressure to publish or perish that put this researcher on a slippery slope.  Resnick and Belluz (2018) describe three main fixes to research challenges; 1. Preregistration of Study Designs 2. Open Data Sharing 3. Registered Replication Reports.

The article by Chow (2018) highlights the possible collusion between company executives and EPA officials to manipulate scientific data.

Evidence based decision making is important for transformational servant leaders because it becomes about best practice and not one person’s thoughts.  Actions can be based on researched outcomes, not thoughts, feelings or personal experience.

In my current role, this course will allow me to be more of a critical thinker with research papers. The science girl had her eyes opened to qualitative, mixed methods and action research. I had my favorite go to sections of studies, but now will look at papers in their entirety with an eye for quality.  Addiction medicine is finally moving into a phase of it being evidence-based medicine and not just voice from experienced physicians or philosophically based groups with judgement on the addicted individual.  There is a long way to go back filling studies and evidence for what is best practices to treat patients with Opioid Use Disorder. One cannot extrapolate alcohol addiction treatment with opioid addiction treatment. Research and then education is critically important to help quell the overdose crisis currently unfolding.

Final Note: I felt compelled to include some information about the TED talk ‘Bad Science’ by Ben Goldacre. He has made a career for himself out of criticizing science, pharma, homeopathy etc. Yes, we need to look deeply into studies for bias, incorrect conclusions and leaving out data. There also needs to be balance regarding the discussion about the pharmaceutical industry. To bring a product to market takes about $1.5 – $2.0 BILLION dollars. There is initial research from a lab, then a number of phased trials before you can submit the evidence to Health Canada for approval. Health Canada takes from 9 – 18 months to review the file in great detail. If approved, then and only then can the product be discussed, marketed and trained to health care providers. There is a patent with limited time on pharmaceutical products. Our marketing materials and representatives can only discuss what Health Canada has approved. If an organization goes ‘off label’ people might be fired immediately, the organization fined, or leadership jailed. There are guidelines and rules that must be followed.

Does my final note regarding the TED talk exhibit bias, understanding, experience or a combination of these things?

References

Goldacre, B. (2011, July). Battling bad science. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science

Resnick, B., Belluz, J., (2018, Oct). A top Cornell food researcher has had 15 studies retracted. That’s a lot. Vox, Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/19/17879102/brian-wansink-cornell-food-brand-lab-retractions-jama

Chow, L. (2018, Sept). Publisher: Roundup Studies Failed to Fully Disclose Monsanto’s Role. Ecowatch,  Retrieved from https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-roundup-cancer-case-2608582252.html 

Photo by: duy-pham-704498-unsplash

Part A

Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015) affirm “the conclusion section does not simply summarize the study – it provides a discussion about the implications, limitations, and significance of the study, often returning full circle to the initial research problem stated in the Introduction” (p. 465).  Common elements in both quantitative and qualitative according to Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) found in figure 14.1 are; a summary of major findings, comparisons or explanations with prior studies, implications and suggestions for practice, suggestions for future research and the overall significance of the study. The two differences between qualitative and quantitative conclusions, are that in qualitative research personal reflections are included and the summary of major findings is by themes. Quantitative research usually does not have personal reflections and the summary of major findings is organized by research questions or hypothesis (p. 472).

Part B

The study by Coetzer, Bussin and Geldenhuys (2017) is a very thorough and current research literature review of the functions of a servant leader.  The authors intent in the discussion section was “to interpret the findings in a meaningful way” (Coetzer et al., 2017). The discussion section was very clearly organized into two main areas, strategic servant leadership and operational servant leadership. They consolidate the findings discussing each relevant point with subheadings. The diagrams and tables sum up very clearly the authors thought and discussion points. The conclusion section doesn’t add any new information and has no references. They discuss implications for management, limitations and future research suggestions.

The implications section has practical suggestions of what can be applied from this study. They extrapolate possible development of future servant leaders by using the findings to “develop curriculum, use in hiring practices, performance management, and remuneration systems” and to “review and reward leaders” (Coetzer et al., 2017).

Applying the rating scale for evaluating the conclusion and back matter in a research report from Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015) the overall score is 2.94/3 (p. 477). It is a high-quality paper right through with clear discussion, conclusion and back matter. Noteworthy was the fact that the main author did the systematic literature review on his own. I would think this would mean there was consistency yet the possibility of bias from one person. There are appendices available online, a detail Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015) mentioned is the way research is heading to share supporting information (p. 475).

Part C

Of interest was the discussion of results, overall conclusion and the link back to the original question being researched. I was looking for what is accepted in terms of latitude in the discussion section. My work involves pharmaceutical products. Discussions in studies can not promise too much or go beyond the scope of what was looked at and must include back matter of possible conflicts of interest with the researchers. The pharmaceutical industry has very strict regulations of all interactions with health care professionals (HCP). We can only purchase a moderate meal for HCP’s if there is education involved that has learning objectives and a highly respected speaker. Some educational speakers do not take honorariums as they would have to declare it as a possible conflict of interest in their introduction while speaking or conducting research. Many working groups, for example those that put together the national guidelines for treatment of opioid use disorder, did not allow participation of some very experienced key opinion leaders because they had a meal paid for by pharma.

In your practice or the news, can you think of any examples of possible conflict of interest where research is involved?

References

Coetzer, M. F., Bussin, M., & Geldenhuys, M. (2017). The functions of a servant leader. Administrative Sciences, 7(5),1-32. Retrieved from [http://www.mdpi.com/2076- 3387/7/1/5](http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/7/1/5)

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.).  Boston, MA: Pearson.

Photo by; rawpixel-558596-unsplash.jpg   

https://anchor.fm/kwantlen-brenda/episodes/The-state-of-indigenous-procurement-in-British-Columbia-e2hprl.

What comes across is your passion about your work and the subject matter of Indigenous procurement in BC.

You are clear about what the problem is in your local setting and discuss what has worked and what has not worked. Listed are five issues that indigenous procurement struggles with in order that indigenous companies can either wholly be awarded a tender or work with non-indigenous companies for economic development and employment.  I learned a lot from your podcast.

Difficult to note were the specifics of an action study. Commented in point four, “so more investigation is needed to understand why more indigenous contract opportunities did not happen. Was the value of the credits under the tender not high enough to entice non-indigenous companies to partner with indigenous businesses? Or did the quotes from the indigenous community owned business not offer enough value?” Both sounded like great potential action study questions.

Point five mentions there is a new model developed by some indigenous companies that operate wholly independently and have created opportunities by sub-contracting jobs such as safety flagging and an expertise in operations management might be needed. Perhaps another opportunity for an action study is understanding the barriers and successes of one independent sub-contractor.

The nine-minute mark introduced possible subject matter to study. Discussed was a survey to the government, indigenous communities and construction companies to understand what has and has not worked to date. The second question was to review best practices across Canada. Both are great ideas, and important to study, however the lens seems to be a little too wide for an action study. Plano-Clarke and Creswell discuss “the problem in an action research study is one that is being faced by a single practitioner or a single organization” (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 431). An important concept from Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) is “with an emphasis on self-reflection and learning, practitioners also choose to conduct action research to advance their own professional development as an important component of addressing local problems (p. 434). Personally, I feel that as servant leaders who are passionate about our practice, it is hard to narrow the lens to very focused, local issues as we want to help solve problems for a wider audience.

You raise a lot of great questions based on your extensive knowledge of the subject matter. If you were to prioritize which question in your practice intrigued you the most, or what question if you had the answer to would positively affect the most people, what would it be? Could you design an action study to get the answer to that one question?

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

I work in the pharmaceutical sector managing a team of representatives who work in addiction medicine and whose goal is to help open access to treatment. Canada is in the middle of an opioid overdose crisis. My company makes Suboxone, a product for addiction and dependence to opioids, diagnosed as opioid use disorder (OUD). My representatives meet with health care professionals (HCP’s) to raise awareness of OUD with a view to educate and help patients get the treatment they deserve. Currently, it is mostly addiction medicine physicians that treat OUD. Family physicians have the capacity to treat uncomplicated OUD or maintain patients in treatment if medication was initiated elsewhere. In many cases, family physicians are reluctant or refuse to accept patients for maintenance treatment.  The problem is that acceptance for patients to get maintenance therapy in family practice, where they want it, is limited.  I want to dig deeper with family physicians regarding the barriers to treat OUD so patients can get treatment with their family doctor.

I propose an action study at two Family Health Teams (FHT’s), one treating and one not treating OUD, and discuss barriers to treatment.  I would conduct a quantitative arm looking at a successful program and find out when they started, how many patients have been treated, how many physicians referred to the treating physician or nurse and then do a qualitative review of what barriers had to be overcome for success.  I would conduct a qualitative study of a FHT that is not treating OUD to get details of the barriers, challenges and hesitations. I feel that by getting to the specific barriers it will help focus efforts to open access to OUD treatment, thereby reducing the death rate.

Figure from: Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses. National report: Apparent opioid-related deaths in Canada (January 2016 to March 2018) Web-based Report. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; September 2018.

Part A

At the heart of the quantitative qualitative debate is that one looks at numbers and exploration with many people or data points while the other looks at words and explanation going deep with a few participants.  Both discover and uncover a lot of information about a topic, issue or new question being asked. Looking at a problem or question from many different angles offers a rich, deeper result or answer to the research question. Mixed methods, which has exploded in the last 10 years, is a great way to provide a wide and deep view of a topic. Mixed methods lead to greater understanding, perhaps more solid conclusions, and practical solutions. For example, in up to date studies in addiction medicine treatment, they now include Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) which measure a patient’s subjective issues or attitudes towards the treatment and not just the biological aspects. VAS would include aspects of daily living and quality of life issues to explore in addition to medical treatment.

Part B

Beck conducted a very high quality study with a rating of 3 from Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) rating Scale for evaluating a mixed methods study (p. 406). Beck (2014) ‘employed a mixed methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two distinct phases: Phase 1, was a quantitative study’ then phase 2 was qualitative including interviews which were coded and analyzed. Themes were revealed and finally both sets of data were triangulated to validate the data. Beck started with a large group of individuals, 499 leaders, already narrowed down having taken a community leadership training program and 630 raters for the quantitative section. He then took 12 individuals with the highest Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) composite score and interviewed them with nine open-ended questions, which he included at the end. The findings, discussion, implication and directions for further research sections are superb. Beck (2014) definitely answered the research questions: ‘(1) Are there certain characteristics or behaviors that would predict a servant leader? (2) Are there experiences or life events that would predict a servant leader?’ Many practical components came to light by using mixed methods.

Part C

The Transformational Servant Leader who made a big impact on me was the global head of sales for the company I currently work for. He had no direct reports, used many coaching techniques and opportunities to encourage the best from individuals, and teams. He could be counted on to discuss issues, what training a team might need and ensured the basics were in place starting with a firm foundation to build on. He worked at the individual, team and international level. You could count on him. He raised the level of the whole company, was fiercely trusted.  You knew he didn’t have a hidden agenda other than excellence for the individuals in the organization. He left just over two years ago and is sorely missed. A few of the transformational servant leader characteristics that he embodied were: wisdom, trustworthiness, reliability, influence/persuasion and great communication.

Beck (2014) published a great example of a mixed-methods study. There were practical things that could be applied to leadership development programs. It would be interesting to apply the antecedent factors such as having a mentor and volunteer work to a fourth-year university business program and check in at one, three and five-year intervals to see how the individuals fare beside a control group. This would involve conducting base line quantitative recordings of the individual’s SLQ, updating at time periods to see if qualities of servant leadership have emerged and or increased. This would be followed by qualitative interviews with a segment of the control group and antecedent intervention group comparing the two.

Beck, C. D. (2014). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Journal of Leadership and Organizational

       Studies, 21(3), 299-314.

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Photo by Pang Yuhao on Unsplash

Part A

According to Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) “research design shapes how the data are collected, analyzed, reported, and interpreted” for both quantitative and qualitative research (p. 195). Methods and results section in a quantitative study include “numeric scores for variables from a large number of individuals, sites or time points” (p. 193). Qualitative studies include “text and images gathered from a small number of individuals or sites. The text and image analysis of the data is used to develop and report description and themes. The results are interpreted in terms of their overall meaning” (p. 287).  In contrast, Quantitative research “uses statistical and graphical analysis of the data to compare groups, relate variables and describe trends. The results are objectively compared with predictions and past studies” (p. 193).

Van Winkle, Allen, DeVore and Winston’s (2014) study was a non-experimental, correlational research design. The authors were measuring the degree of association or relationship between two or more variables using the statistical procedures of correlational analysis (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 204). It can’t be claimed that one variable causes the other, in this example, servant leadership and a followers’ perception of being empowered.  According to Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) correlational research design is one of the most common. Van Winkle et al. (2014) completed good data collection and analysis.  The authors used two validated instruments for initial information, then compared the relationship between the two with subsets. Using the Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) rating scale for Research Design, the study was assessed at 2.7 out of 3, in the high-quality range (p. 212).

Part B

Van Winkle et al. (2014) sample strategy was two pronged within the 50 employees or less category. Participants were identified either through personal and professional contacts or adult students working for a small business and attending a college in California. The sample strategy was appropriate and justified having 130 out of 156 surveys completed. At an 86% completion rate over the cut off of 60% to be meaningful. Plano-Clark & Creswell asserts there is a minimum requirement of 30 participants for a correlational study that relates variables (p. 238).

Van Winkle et al. (2014) used two validated instruments, which they discussed and described, and study was approved by the institutional review board and deemed proper for the data collection.

Internal validity is strong as two instruments were used, one had to be categorized (servant leadership) before comparing the results of the other (followers feeling empowered).  It appears that researchers used rigorous procedures to obtain a representative sample so external validity was strong, confirmed with over 86% completion rate of the survey.  The overall score using Plano-Clark & Creswell’s rating scale for evaluating the participants and data collection was 2.84 out of 3 (p. 250).

Part C

“Keep the study’s research questions and hypotheses in mind as you read the results as often the information is organized to address each of these one by one” (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 270).  Keeping this in mind, Van Winkle et al. (2014) purpose stated, “this study sought to contribute to the empirical research of servant leadership by measuring the relationship between supervisors’ servant leadership behaviors and followers’ perceptions of empowerment within the context of small business” (Van Winkle et al., 2014). Looking at the data analysis and results, the purpose was fulfilled. The study having a “Crobach alpha of .90 indicates a high internal reliability” (Van Winkle et al., 2014), higher than a reliability score of at least .70 which Plano-Clark and Creswell indicate is one measure for statistical significance (p. 242). The sample size of 116 resulted in a power of 100%, suggesting the “sample size was more than adequate to support the correlation found” (Van Winkle et al., 2014).

Overall findings show “servant leadership behaviors have strong correlations with followers’ perceptions of both structural empowerment and the psychological empowerment of followers” (Van Winkle et al., 2014). The most important results are visually shown in Table 1 broken out into discussion about each individual subscale of follower’s perceived empowerment.

Part D

One of the most important things to keep in mind in the methods and results section is validating the hypotheses and research questions for the overall study. The methods should be clear and reproducible if the results needed to be validated. The data needs to be thought of in terms of it’s strength with various validating methods such as p value, r, internal and external validation.  This assists the reader with what weight to assign the study’s overall conclusions.

Elements of this section regarding a deep understanding of all the statistical measurements are not concrete to me at this point. It helped to go through some of these elements using the specific paper. It is not something to fear, just to be aware of. In my work context, it will make me a more informed and better consumer of research papers and knowing how much emphasis to place on conclusions of the study.

What happens if incorrect conclusions are drawn in a study? Do you think these would have to be mentioned and discredited in the introduction section of subsequent papers or just ignored?

References

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide. (2^nd Ed.)

 Boston, MA: Pearson.           

Van Winkle, B., Allen, S., DeVore, D., & Winston, B. (2014). The relationship between the

 servant leadership behaviors of immediate supervisors and follower’s perceptions of

being empowered in the context of small business. Journal of Leadership Education,

 13(3), 70-82.

Part A

     As per Plano and Creswell (2015) at a basic level, the difference between qualitative and quantitative studies are numbers and explanation vs. words and exploration. Highlights from qualitative studies include an emphasis on numbers and statistics, a very narrow scope and purpose yet a large number of individuals, time points or sites. Data is then analyzed by using graphs and tables to compare groups and describe trends. The researchers draw conclusions by looking at past results and make predictions based on the analyzed numerical statistics. Researchers must remain neutral and let the figures and results speak for themselves.

     In contrast, quantitative studies go deep with fewer individuals, sites or time frames. The purpose is very broad, and researchers interpret overall meaning from the results. In this context researchers are subjective and reflexive. (Plano & Creswell, 2015, p. 58)

     The statement of the problem from Parris and Peachey (2012) is the following; ‘Currently, there does not exist a comprehensive summary of empirical studies exploring servant leadership theory in organizational settings (e.g., a systematic literature review (SLR)), which is a gap in the extant literature.’ The quality rating is 2.79/3. The topic of Servant Leadership is clear, there is a meaningful problem quoted above that gives credence to the issue of a lack of clear evidence confirming that Servant Leadership is distinct, viable and valuable for organizations. It states deficiencies in the extant literature. The audiences that could benefit are all who are involved in studies of servant leadership and organizations. The passage is well written and argues that further study is warranted.

Part B

     Parris and Peachey’s (2012) article is a systematic literature review. They included 111 references and were very specific in their screening process resulting in 39 appropriate studies, both quantitative and qualitative. The authors did a second screening to ensure eligibility. My overall assessment of the literature review was 2.86/3, in the excellent range. Small deductions for including English only studies and interesting that there were so many varied Journals involved. The authors were able to synthesize a tremendous amount of literature into a meaningful paper that started with the initial proponents of this style of leadership, the tools used and reused and covered a wide swath of disciplines.  The literature was all published in peer reviewed journals and looked to provide an evidence-informed answer regarding the plausibility/success of servant leadership.

    Interesting how far the research moved forward from Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) paper, ten years previous that stated ‘as the current literature on servant leadership is filled with anecdotal evidence, empirical research is critically needed to test and validate these various questions and to create further predictions and hypotheses in order to fully develop the concept and construct of servant leadership.’ Parris and Peachey (2012) certainly answered the question based on the published literature up to 2012.

Part C

     Parris and Peachey (2012) stated the purpose directly, ‘the purpose of this study was to systematically examine and organize the current body of research literature that either quantitatively or qualitatively explored servant leadership theory in a given organizational setting.’ My overall evaluation of their literature review was 2.86/3. Clearly there was and continues to be a need to prove with research the benefits of servant leadership as it’s still in the early days of empirical studies. Parris and Peachey (2012) undertook the enormous task of making sense of the empirical studies that are peer reviewed and published to look for evidence/support for this form of leadership. Their purpose and focus were clear and appropriate. They were very specific at what studies were included, screening twice.  Their review added an important synthesis of what was known in 2012.

Part D

    The introduction section of a high-quality research paper should include the broad topic, a research problem and the purpose for the research study. The problem should be clear and concise and pull the reader in to want to read more. There should be a setting of the stage with some history on the problem, what has been done to date where the gaps are and what has been studied to date. The purpose statement should be clear, so the reader knows what to expect as they read on.  It should also point out who might benefit from the study.

    Plano and Creswell (2015) do a great job outlining why researchers need to study research problems including; filling a gap in existing literature, replicate past results examining different participants and different research sites, extend past results or examine the problem more thoroughly, learn from people affected by the problem whose voices have not been heard, or improve current practices related to the research problem (p.84).

    I was surprised to learn how many elements are included in the introduction. I thought it was just an introduction to the topic that was researched. It makes more sense now and sets up a research paper in a formulaic way and takes a bit of the mystery away. I also liked the explanation of quantitative research being used when an explanation is needed and qualitative when exploration is needed.  (Plano & Creswell, 2015, p. 85)

    I will apply this knowledge when I read papers for work and look for the elements discussed this week.  I spend a lot of time advocating for patients and there is an element of emotion involved. In written research papers, there isn’t much emotion expressed. It is more about the problem, research and then outcomes.

     After learning more about the structure of research papers, and demystifying the process does this entice anyone to want to investigate doing some hands-on research and even a PhD?

References

Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership

       theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 113 (3), 377-393.

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.).

       Boston, MA: Pearson.

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application

       in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9(2), 57-64.

Photo by rawpixel 983726 on Unsplash 

My experience with American Psychological Association (APA) style is very limited. I had a long break between my undergraduate degree and the current Masters. Essays were referenced and mostly typed on a typewriter. Certainly, some students had computers however, it wasn’t the norm. While undertaking LDRS617 the professor was very helpful and patient in making comments and corrections to APA style. I find that some rules are not very intuitive so will have to be learned and the quantity is somewhat daunting.  It takes an incredible amount of time when new to make sure the correct APA style is exhibited. I am starting at the beginning. Of note is that it isn’t just the visual rules to follow, it is the content rules such as clear and concise writing, acceptable terminology and using the proper tense (Hatala 2015).

Scholarly writing can be important in my leadership context applying the rules I am learning to work documents. Certainly, being clear and concise, using correct terminology and being aware of the proper tense is important.  In the pharmaceutical industry, we cannot make claims about our product unless it is in the product monograph, approved by Health Canada. I saw some parallels to the APA ethics rules.  There is no place for presenting incorrect data, being rude to individuals who were studied, fabricating data, modifying or eliminating results, having the data available including post marketing surveillance. Two areas that hadn’t been thought of are authorship credit and writers block (Hatala, 2015). I can see how it must become very motivating to keep asking research questions and doing the work to get the answers or results and how the learning can be implemented.

Part 2

APA style is new to me and like most new things they take time when the brain is struggling to go over all the details. There are no shortcuts now other than the most basic visual rules. My initial biggest worry was accidentally plagiarizing so I over reference. I am learning how to give credit to ideas I read about in someone’s paper versus a direct quote according to APA.

Important points in APA writing are being clear and concise including the tense of the writing, avoid wordiness, redundancy, jargon, colloquial expressions, anthropomorphisms and watch the unit length (Hatala 2015). I would have used the past sentence as a paragraph, however it is not advised to have a long one sentence paragraph.

I haven’t formatted a proper APA paper yet, so will practice. Other details of interest were acceptable terminology. Some terms are known such as First Nations in Canada and to have the others Hatala (2015) listed confirmed.

My other observation is that there is no place to have a sense of humor in this type of writing. This is serious writing.

The questions I have for my instructor are; What do you recommend to someone new to APA to ensure that all rules are followed before submitting a paper?  How do you reference online content?  Do you have to include the name of the speaker?  If there are multiple clips from the same presenter on the same topic, how are these differentiated?

References

American Psychological Association (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological

           Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hatala, M. (2015). Learn APA Style. Writing Clearly & Concisely. Retrieved from

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRu1UPPubMY

Photo by Green Cameleon 21532 on Unsplash

Part 1

In searching for scholarly literature, I found that searching under well known journals was helpful to get credible information right away.  Going the Google route brought up many articles mostly of a news nature and not scholarly literature. There is a lot in the news right now regarding opioids and overdose but not too much on treatment.

Part 2

The authors and their credentials are as follows; Dr. Sarah Wakeman M.D., is the Medical Director, Substance Use Disorder Initiative, Program Director, Addiction Medicine Fellowship and Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard University; Dr. Michael Barnett, M.D., assistant professor at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. They are very credible authors.

The article was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, July 5, 2018. It was a perspective, not a full research study. This journal is one of the highest for credibility. The article is only 3 months old.

The intentions of the authors were to inform physicians in primary care of the myths and realities of treating opioid use disorder and the treatment options. The intended audience is family physicians.

The New England Journal of Medicine published the article in July 2018. All articles in this journal are peer reviewed before they can be published.

The authors both work in the addiction medicine field. They are fully aware on many practical levels of the ongoing crisis and difficulty in patients finding treatment. They are very credible specialists that were advocating for family physicians to start treating addiction in their practices to help open access to treatment. The article is very practical discussing the realities, myths and possible policy responses as well.  It is well written.  Although they are American, the issues are very similar in Canada right now. The practical medical advice would transfer for use here.

Wakeman, S. E., & Barnett, M. L., (2018) Primary Care and the Opioid-Overdose Crises –  Buprenorphine Myths and Realities, New England Journal of Medicine, July 2018, 379;1 file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/NEJMp1802741%20Primary%20Care%20Treatment.pdf

Part C

I will use many different sources of information. For the introduction I will look up some of the statistics from Canadian government sources such as provincial health reports of overdoses. I will look up published guidelines of how and where opioids should be used. I will find articles on how many patients go through emergency departments. I will try and contact the RAAM clinics individually to get up to date statistics.

When reading some of the research it will be important to understand who and where the research has come from. There are many philosophical ideas about treatment of addiction.  It is an area that is just starting to apply evidence-based treatment instead of what was done in the past. It is a huge shift.  I have been involved in the addiction medicine realm for some time and know most of the key opinion leaders. I am aware of the centers that do research and the high-level journals. Hopefully that will be useful. 

Do you think that research of a medical nature can be applied to the Canadian landscape even if it was carried out in another country?

Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash