Hello, I need some help with the Assignment: an analysis of two articles: experimental and pre-experimental, and complete an Annotated Bibliography in APA 7th edition. Please let me know if you are able to help. I would like to request the same Expert that I had last time (order Id 68430).Thank you. Yana
Unit 8 Assignment 1: Annotated Bibliography for an Experimental Versus Pre-Experimental Design In this Assignment, you will create an annotated bibliography. An annotated bibliography begins with the reference citation, followed by 1-2 summary paragraphs. Here is an example of an annotated bibliography: Slater, J., Finnegan, J., & Madigan, S. (2005). Incorporation of a successful community-based mammography intervention: Dissemination beyond a community trial. Health Psychology, 24, 463-469. This study described the outcome of the implementation of an intervention called Friend to Friend (FTF) which was a program to increase breast cancer awareness among women ages 40 and older. Using 42 public housing facilities the authors randomized 21 facilities to receive immediate intervention and 21 to receive delayed intervention. A 3-week recruitment campaign was conducted in low income housing communities. Material was distributed to persuade eligible female participants to participate in a 90-minute facilitated program where mammography was discussed in a social atmosphere. Those in the immediate intervention were more likely to participate in mammography than the delayed intervention group. In conclusion, behavior change may be more easily adopted if the issues are addressed upfront. As it relates to limitations, although no dissipation occurred, the delayed group was less likely than the immediate intervention group to adopt the screening behavior. This may be due to contamination of the sample or the delayed intervention may have formed an opinion that screening was not as important. To achieve this assignment, do the following: · Create an annotated bibliography for each of the article below in which the researcher used an experimental research model and one in which a pre-experimental research design was used. · In your initial AB submission, you must also include a written analysis that addresses the following: . How these two study types differ . How these study types are similar . The major factors that make experimental research different from pre-experimental research . The robustness of experimental versus non-experimental design References · Experimental Research model: Tenforde, A. S., Borgstrom, H., Polich, G., Steere, H., Davis, I. S., Cotton, K., & O’Donnell, M. (2020). Outpatient Physical, Occupational, and Speech Therapy Synchronous Telemedicine: A Survey Study of Patient Satisfaction with Virtual Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 11, 977. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000001571 · Pre-experimental research design: Tack, C. T., Grodon, J., Shorthouse, F., & Spahr, N. (2020). “Physio Anywhere”: digitally enhanced outpatient care as a legacy of coronavirus 2020. Physiotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2020.07.004 PHM51230 977..981 SPECIAL SECTION ON COVID-19 AND PM&R BRIEF REPORT Outpatient Physical, Occupational, and Speech Therapy Synchronous Telemedicine A Survey Study of Patient Satisfaction with Virtual Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic Adam S. Tenforde, MD, Haylee Borgstrom, MD, MS, Ginger Polich, MD, Hannah Steere, MD, Irene S. Davis, PhD, PT, Kester Cotton, PT, Mary O’Donnell, MS, OTR/L, and Julie K. Silver, MD Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic transformed health care delivery, including rapid expansion of telehealth. Telerehabilitation, defined as therapy provided by physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech and language pathology, was rapidly adopted with goals to pro- vide access to care and limit contagion. The purpose of this brief re- port was to describe the feasibility of and satisfaction with telerehabilitation. A total of 205 participants completed online surveys after a telerehabilitation visit. Most commonly, participants were women (53.7%), 35–64 yrs old, and completed physical therapy (53.7%) for established visits of 30–44 mins in duration for primary impairments in sports, lower limb injuries, and pediatric neurology. Overall, high ratings (“excellent” or “very good” responses) were ob- served for all patient-centered outcome metrics (range, 93.7%–99%) and value in future telehealth visit (86.8%) across telerehabilitation visits. Women participated more frequently and provided higher rat- ings than male participants did. Other benefits included eliminating travel time, incorporating other health care advocates, and conve- nience delivering care in familiar environment to pediatric patients. Technology and elements of hands-on aspects of care were observed limitations. Recognizing reduced indirect costs of care that telerehabilitation may provide along with high patient satisfaction are reasons policy makers should adopt these services into future health care delivery models. KeyWords:Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Speech Therapy, Telemedicine, Telehealth, Pandemics (Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2020;99:977–981) T his report describes the rapid conversion from in-personvisits to synchronous telerehabilitation visits during the novel coronavirus pandemic (SARS-CoV2 is the virus that causes COVID-19 disease). After outbreaks in China and Europe beginning in late 2019, COVID-19 quickly spread to From the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (AST, HB, GP, HS, ISD, JKS); Spaulding Reha- bilitation Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (AST, HB, GP, HS, ISD, JKS); Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (GP, JKS); Spaulding Outpatient Center Wellesley, Wellesley, Massachusetts (KC); Spaulding Outpa- tient Center for Children Lexington, Lexington, Massachusetts (MO); and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (JKS). All correspondence should be addressed to: Julie K. Silver, MD, 300 1st Ave, Charlestown, MA 02025. Haylee Borgstrom is in training. Financial disclosure statements have been obtained, and no conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors or by any individuals in control of the content of this article. Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN: 0894-9115 DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001571 American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation • Volume 99, Numbe Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer H the United States and other countries. Ensuing efforts to mini- mize contagion for patients and health care workers and con- serve health care resources resulted in the dramatic reduction of face-to-face outpatient clinical care. Reduced access to in-person rehabilitation care, along with changes in health care finance and delivery, contributed to an exponential increase in telehealth. Measures of quality and patient satisfaction are un- known in this new model of telerehabilitation. To explore the feasibility of telerehabilitation, the authors initiated a quality improvement project, administering an online survey after adult and pediatric synchronous physical therapy (PT), occupa- tional (OT), and speech (SLP) therapy visits. Synchronous visits are those that occur in real time (whereas email ex- changes, for example, would be asynchronous). ByMay 1, 2020, during the peak surge of initial infections in Massachusetts, there were more than 64,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and nearly 4,000 deaths.1 For the authors’ academic center, outpatient in-person visits were limited to ur- gent issues only (e.g., progressive neurologic deficit, severe pain, or immediate postoperative care). Governor Baker de- clared a state of emergency for Massachusetts on March 10, 2020, and issued a proclamation that expanded telehealth cov- erage to all network providers to reimburse for telehealth at same rate as in-person visits.2 Physiatric telemedicine was al- ready in place at the authors’ institution but required rapid ex- pansion and was met with high satisfaction.3 In contrast, telerehabilitation was new to the system. To date, the literature on telerehabilitation is limited and most commonly describes treatment for an impairment within a specific disease, such as teletherapy to address motor impair- ment after stroke.4 Telerehabilitation has often been offered in addition to in-person care—complementing usual care rather than replacing it altogether.5,6 Reports often describe asynchro- nous (vs. synchronous) care—providing a different patient experience.4,7–12 Reimbursement expansion during the initial stages of the pandemic created awindowof opportunity to study the feasibility of and patient satisfaction with telerehabilitation. This, in turn, may help inform future clinical care, reimburse- ment, and health care policy during the pandemic and beyond. The purpose of this report is to evaluate patient and patient care advocate reported experiences using telerehabilitation within a single hospital system during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS This study was approved by the quality improvement pro- gram at the authors’ academic center and was exempt from r 11, November 2020 www.ajpmr.com 977 ealth, Inc. All rights reserved. TABLE 1. Patient demographics and telerehabilitation visit characteristics, n (%) Sex Type of visit Girl or woman 110 (53.7) New 26 (12.7) Boy or man 92 (44.9) Follow-up, established issue 164 (80.0) Transgender (man) 3 (1.5) Follow-up, new issue 15 (7.3)Age, years 0–7 52 (25.4) Duration of visit, minutes 1 (0.5)8–12 13 (6.3) 0–14 22 (10.7)13–17 8 (3.9) 15–29 122 (59.5)18–34 25 (12.2) 30–44 54 (26.3)35–64 67 (32.7) 45–59 6 (2.9)≥65 40 (19.5) ≥60 Insurance status Reason for visit Insured 205 (100) Spine condition 17 (8.3) Uninsured 0 Sports injury 32 (15.6) Typical travel time, minutes Nonsports injury 19 (9.3) 5–15 47 (22.9) Upper limb injury 9 (4.4) 15–29 49 (23.9) Lower limb injury 34 (16.6) 30–59 64 (31.2) Concussion 2 (1.0) 60–89 34 (16.6) Balance impairment 11 (5.4) 90–120 10 (4.9) Post-stroke 11 (5.4) Family or friend involvement Posttraumatic brain injury 11 (5.4) Yes, present 80 (39.0) Postspinal cord injury 0Yes, remote 18 (8.8) Other neurologic injury 11 (5.4)No 107 (52.2) Parkinson disease 2 (1.0)Type of therapist Multiple sclerosis 2 (1.0)Physical 110 (53.7) Pediatric orthopedics 6 (2.9)Occupational 29 (14.1) Pediatric neurology 36 (17.6)Speech and language 63 (30.7) Other 42 (20.5)Other 3 (1.5) Tenforde et al. Volume 99, Number 11, November 2020 institutional review board approval. The quality improvement re- port followed Standards forQuality Improvement Reporting Excel- lence (SQUIRE 2.0).13 Therapists performing telerehabilitation within a single hospital system for PT, OT, or SLPwere eligible to participate. Patients were informed about the initiative dur- ing their visit, and those who verbally agreed to participate were sent a brief online survey. Because this was a virtual visit and participants consented verbally and by filling out the sur- vey, no additional written consent was deemed necessary for this institutional review board–exempt quality initiative. The online survey contained 16 items, with answer choices selected using radio buttons to improve speed and accuracy of completion. The survey used was designed to measure quality and patient satisfaction in a previous report on physiatry care3 but modified to collect measures of experience with a therapist, including ability to develop and execute a treatment plan. Patient demographic data and telerehabilitation visit char- acteristics were collected. Patient-centered outcome measures were rated using a 5-point Likert scale, and an optional free re- sponse question allowed patients to identify elements of the visit that were helpful, report on limitations, and provide gen- eral feedback. The authors used an online survey tool through Research Electronic Data Capture hosted on their institution’s server.14,15 Research Electronic Data Capture is a