Please find attached the guideline of this task and the article on pdf 

APA FORMAT

4pages excluding cover and reference page

NR326 Mental Health Nursing

RUA: Scholarly Article Review Guidelines

NR326 RUA Scholarly Article Review Guideline 1

Purpose
The student will review, summarize, and critique a scholarly article related to a mental health topic.

Course outcomes: This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcomes.
(CO 4) Utilize critical thinking skills in clinical decision-making and implementation of the nursing process for

psychiatric/mental health clients. (PO 4)
(CO 5) Utilize available resources to meet self-identified goals for personal, professional, and educational

development appropriate to the mental health setting. (PO 5)
(CO 7) Examine moral, ethical, legal, and professional standards and principles as a basis for clinical decision-making.

(PO 6)
(CO 9) Utilize research findings as a basis for the development of a group leadership experience. (PO 8)

Due date: Your faculty member will inform you when this assignment is due. The Late Assignment Policy applies to
this assignment.

Total points possible: 100 points

Preparing the assignment
1) Follow these guidelines when completing this assignment. Speak with your faculty member if you have questions.

a. Select a scholarly nursing or research article, published within the last five years, related to mental health
nursing. The content of the article must relate to evidence-based practice.
• You may need to evaluate several articles to find one that is appropriate.

b. Ensure that no other member of your clinical group chooses the same article, then submit your choice for
faculty approval.

c. The submitted assignment should be 2-3 pages in length, excluding the title and reference pages.
2) Include the following sections (detailed criteria listed below and in the Grading Rubric must match exactly).

a. Introduction (10 points/10%)
• Establishes purpose of the paper
• Captures attention of the reader

b. Article Summary (30 points/30%)
• Statistics to support significance of the topic to mental health care
• Key points of the article
• Key evidence presented
• Examples of how the evidence can be incorporated into your nursing practice

c. Article Critique (30 points/30%)
• Present strengths of the article
• Present weaknesses of the article
• Discuss if you would/would not recommend this article to a colleague

d. Conclusion (15 points/15%)
• Provides analysis or synthesis of information within the body of the text
• Supported by ides presented in the body of the paper
• Is clearly written

e. Article Selection and Approval (5 points/5%)
• Current (published in last 5 years)
• Relevant to mental health care
• Not used by another student within the clinical group
• Submitted and approved as directed by instructor

f. APA format and Writing Mechanics (10 po

SIRS 2020 Abstracts

S150 Poster Session II

to the Strong response group, while olanzapine strongly predicted
the belonging to the Slight response group. There was no signifi-
cant difference among the antipsychotic drugs regarding the Good
response group.
Discussion: Most patients (74%) with a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis
showed a good response during the one year follow-up and another 13%
showed a remarkable strong improvement. That means that a total of
87% of patients had a satisfactory course of illness during the first year.
Use of amisulpride predicts a better course compared to aripiprazole and
olanzapine. This finding can be useful for clinicians when selecting antipsy-
chotic drugs for their patients.

M42. INDEPENDENT REVIEW & MONITORING
IMPROVES QUALITY OF PANSS DATA IN
GLOBAL CLINICAL TRIALS

Barbara Echevarria*1, Cong Liu1, Selam Negash1, Mark Opler1,
Patricio Molero2, Gianna Capodilupo1
1WCG MedAvante-ProPhase; 2Clinica Universidad de Navarra,
Spain

Background: The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) (1) is
the most widely used endpoint for measuring change in schizophrenia clin-
ical trials. A  set of flags have been developed by ISCTM expert working
group to identify potential scoring errors in PANSS assessments (2).
Measures have been taken by sponsors (pharmaceutical industry) with the
goal of increasing scoring reliability and data quality, such as the use of
Independent Review (IRev). We evaluated changes in data quality when
site raters stop being recorded and monitored via IRev by comparing two
studies with the same cohort of raters, one with independent review and
one without.
Methods: Data from PANSS assessments in two global multisite schiz-
ophrenia clinical trials were analyzed. We selected data from raters
participating in both studies (which run concurrently for a signifi-
cant period of time). Raters were rigorously trained on administra-
tion and scoring conventions and certified prior to the study through
demonstration of adequate interrater reliability. In addition to these
steps, raters in study A  were required to audio record all PANSS
assessments with a selected subset of visits being subject to IRev.
PANSS assessments in study B were neither recorded nor monitored
via IRev. Data quality after study completion was examined by calcu-
lating the frequency of anomalous data patterns identified as “high”
(very probable or definite error) by the ISCTM Working Group in
both studies. Additionally, we examined the percentage of assessments
with lower than expected PANSS interview duration as captured via
an eCOA platform.
Results: There were 9441 eCOA PANSS assessments in study A  and
6178 in study B included in this analysis. The proportions of flags that
represented highly probable/definite error differed significantly between
the studies (9% vs 18% for Study A  and B, resp