Not all EBP projects result in statistically significant results. Define clinical significance, and explain the difference between clinical and statistical significance. How can you use clinical significance to support positive outcomes in your project?
There are two types of significance used to interpret research studies, statistical significance and clinical significance. One answers the question, Are the statistical results due to random chance? and the other answers the question, Will the results matter to our patients? Statistical significance has to do with the likelihood that a research result is true and not just simply a matter of chance. Clinical significance is an independent interpretation of a research result as practical or meaningful for the patient and thus likely to affect provider behavior (Thompson, 2017).
A decrease in turnover rates among newly licensed nurses after introducing education on effects of workplace violence during unit and hospital wide meetings would be considered a clinically significant outcome. Also, if newly licensed nurses are feeling more confident as they transition into practice with the help of mentor programs, I would also consider this to be a clinically significant outcome in the reduction of high turnover rates.
Thompson, C. (2017). What’s the difference between statistical and clinical significance? Retrived from https://nursingeducationexpert.com/difference-statistical-significance-clinical-significance/
It is important to know if the treatment recommended is effective enough that it could be recommended as a practical treatment for the patient. If it is palpable, or noticeable to the patient and effects their daily quality of life, then it is considered clinically important or significant. This doesn’t mean that it would hold up as “proveable” in a clinical trial however as many variables could influence the result.
Here is an example in a study measuring clinical significanceof a nursing intervention with and without combined interventions for a patient sample co-infected with UC and lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage. The results show statistical validation of the clinical results making it statistically significant. In the control group The conventional medical nursing was performed, however the observation group received pertinent clinical nursing practices related to such as health education, diet, and mental health strategies intervention, based on the control group. After nursing interventions the control group showed higher levels of depression 37.90 ± 8.03 and anxiety 36.26 ± 9.54 compared to the observation group. When comparing the two groups the difference was statistically significant with (P<0.05).
Quality of life showed a score 3.97 ± 1.04 with the observation group, significantly higher 3.11 ± 0.95 than the control group receiving nursing interventions, the comparative differences between showed statistical significance of (P<0.05). The conclusion showed clinical nursing path significantly improves negative emotions and QOL in patient sample co-infected with UC and lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage
For my project I can look at the significant results of other studies. By describing the common variables and their application to analyzing the my research problem in such a way that the reader obtains a clear understanding of the relationships between common variables and why they are important. This is also relevant to replicating their work using the same variables but applied in a different way.
Reference: Hu, N., Fu, X. J., Guo, H. R., & Gu, X. Y. (2017). Combined clinical nursing path influencing negative emotions and living quality of patients co-infected with ulcerative colitis and lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Biomedical Research, 28(22).
Retrieved form: http://www.alliedacademies.org/articles/combined-c…