Content

Excellent

3 points

Good

2 points

Fair – Poor

0 – 1 points

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

Article Title, Date, and Author

The correct title, date, and all authors (up to 6) are included for each study.

The article title, date, and authors are included but with some errors or omissions.

Article title and/or Author(s) incorrect or not included on the evidence table.

Research Question/Purpose

The research question and/or purpose of the study are clearly and correctly stated.

The research question/purpose is included but with some errors or omissions.

Research question and/or purpose of the study is not clearly and/or correctly stated.

Study Aims

Study aims are accurate and address how the researcher(s) plan(s) to address the research question/purpose.

Study aims are included but with some errors or omissions.

Study aims are not stated.

Study Design

(Conceptual/ theoretical framework if applicable)

Study design is correctly identified. If applicable, conceptual/theoretical framework is also correctly identified.

Study design is identified but with some errors or omissions. Theoretical/conceptual framework is applicable yet not correctly identified.

Study design is not identified. If applicable (stated by the researcher) conceptual/theoretical model is not identified.

Sample Size and Setting

Sample size and setting of the study are accurately identified.

Sample size and setting of the study are identified but with some errors or omissions.

Sample size and setting are not clearly stated.

Population Characteristics

Characteristics of the study population are included and accurate.

Characteristics of the study population are included with some errors or omissions.

Population characteristics are not clearly described.

Variables (Quant)

Phenomenon (Qual)

All study variables are accurately identified and labeled as independent/dependent. For qualitative studies, the phenomenon of interest is accurately identified.

Some study variables are not accurate or not included. Study variables are not labeled as dependent or independent. For qualitative studies, the phenomenon of interest is identified but is not accurate or complete.

None of the study variables are accurately identified OR are not labeled as dependent/independent. For Qualitative studies, the phenomenon of interest is not identified.

Results

Results of the study are summarized and include results of statistical tests. Results are not copied verbatim from the study.

Results of the study are included but copied verbatim from the study. Results of statistical tests are included.

Results are not included or are not summarized (copied verbatim from the source). OR Results of statistical tests are not included.

Evidence Strength & Quality Rating (JHHEBP)

Study is evaluated using the JHH EBP Evidence Strength and Quality Tool. Evaluation is accurate based on study design and study quality.

Study is evaluated using the JHH EBP Evidence Strength and Quality Tool. Evaluation is partially accurate based on study design and study quality.

Evidence Strength/Quality is not included and/or does not follow the JHH EBP Tool process.

Strength and Limitations

Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed. If researchers do not state limitations, student is able to identify at least one aspect of the study that could be a limitation and at least one aspect of the study that makes it strong evidence.

Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed, but with some omissions.

Strengths and Limitations are not included or are not accurate for this study.

Study addresses the PICOT Question

Chosen study appropriately helps to answer the PICOT question. Student states how the study answers the question.

Chosen study somewhat answers the PICOT question. Student includes an explanation.

Study does not address the problem identified in the PICOT question. OR Student does not include an explanation.

Spelling, Grammar, APA format

No errors in spelling, grammar, or APA format where applicable.

Some errors in spelling, grammar, and/or APA format where applicable.

Significant errors in spelling, grammar, and/or APA format where applicable.

Total Final Group Grade:

Author(s) and year

Research

Question/Purpose

Study Aims

Study

Design

Sample size (n), setting, and population characteristics

Independent and

dependent

Variable (s)

Results

Evidence Strength & Quality Rating

(JHNEBP), include

limitations/strengths

How the articles answer the PICO

Student Initials

Roseanne D. Dobkin, Sarah L. Mann, Michael A. Gara, Alejandro Interian, Kailyn M. Rodriguez, Matthew Menza (2020).

It was to see if patients with depression and Parkinson's disease (PD) can effectively alleviate their depressive symptoms significantly more than treatment as usual (TAU) alone with telephone-based cognitive-behavioral treatment (T-CBT) and TAU together (Dobkin et al., 2020).

It aims to use T-CBT as a way to get through access obstacles to multidisciplinary, evidence-based care and reduce depression in patients with PD, which is considered a need that is not often taken care of. It also aims to take advantage of telemedicine to extend the reach of evidence-based, PD-based depression treatment, and its great benefits for PD self-management. With T-CBT, patients with PD can benefit from their own home, and they do not have to live near any mental health services (Dobkin et al., 2020).

A randomized controlled trial

There were 72 people with PD and depression whose ages ranged from 59-75 years old. There were 35 males and 37 females. They were randomized into 37 people doing T-CBT and TAU together, which is the intervention, with 35 people doing only TAU, the control group. The setting was the Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry at Rutgers–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Between August 2015 and September 2017 from the Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry at Rutgers–Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, local PD support groups, and Fox Trial Finder (a clinical trial match tool), participants were found and recruited. When the last evaluation finished in June 2018, follow-up finished for patients as well (Dobkin et al., 2020).

The independent variables are T-CBT plus TAU and TAU alone. The primary dependent variable is the Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) Rating Score, which measures depressive symptoms. The secondary outcomes are anxiety and quality of life scores.

T-CBT and TAU together greatly improved mood (HAM-D) compared to TAU over the course of the trial ( F4,249 = 14.89, p < 0.0001) ( tables 2 and 3 and figure 2). Treatment effects ( p < 0.0001) were maintained at 6-month follow-up ( p < 0.0001). Self-reported depressive symptoms (BDI) (F4,244 = 5.07, p < 0.001), anxiety (HAM-A) (F4,249 = 8.63, p < 0.0001), and quality of life (SF-36 MCS) (F4,241 = 3.62, p = 0.007) had significant improvements (Dobkin et al., 2020). Depression and anxiety decreased while quality of life increased. Effects were consistent through 6-month follow-up (tables 2 and 3) (Dobkin et al., 2020).

This is Level 1, quality A research. A randomized controlled trial is one of the most top levels of research to find the relationship between the intervention and focused outcomes. This article provides consistent results with a sufficient sample size, adequate control, and definitive conclusions. Results are valid and reliable even after a 6 month follow-up.Strengths and limitations are clearly stated in the article. Here are the article’s limitations. One of them is that results may not apply well to people with advanced PD. The second one is that an existing practice control was used to compare the T-CBT results to the current care standard, and TAU may boost effect sizes relative to other kinds of comparison conditions. The third one is that it’s not doable to fully separate the effects of T-CBT from broad factors, such as therapeutic relationship, time, and attention, that can very well impact all psychotherapy outcomes (Dobkin et al., 2020). This would lower the chances of T-CBT being the major factor, but based on the study results, the T-CBT intervention seemed to have more of an impact that would lower the chances of the broad factors being more of a contribution. Fourth, this study had an a priori test of T-CBT's effectiveness at lowering negative thoughts, a key treatment target, but it was not made to assess the relative contributions of specific components of the intervention (e.g., cognitive, behavioral, and caregiver engagement strategies) or other clinical factors (e.g., antidepressant medication status) to the end treatment effect, which will be the focus of future dismantling studies (Dobkin et al., 2020). Fifth, even though 41% of T-CBT participants got to or went over the study criteria of depression “much improved” (CGI-I ≤ 2), and mean HAM-D scores lowered more than 1.5 standard deviations (SDs) in the T-CBT group, there were still reports of post-residual symptoms. This applies to the other tools and results. Finally, while remote delivery of interdisciplinary PD services is expanding and being seen as critical for advancing care, limitations stay on insurance coverage for telemental health services like T-CBT (Dobkin et al., 2020). Reimbursement may also be hard to achieve based on patients’ eligibilities of telehealth. In addition to the quality rating strengths, here are other strengths of the article. It helps the promise of telemedicine to extend the reach of evidence-based, PD depression treatment, and its grand benefits for PD self-management, into usual neurologic care. It addresses some gene