Program Evaluations and Evidence-Based Process - Essay Example

Other questions require the sources where to collect the information either from customers, clients, or program documentation. Secondly, the fashion on which the information is supposed to be collected, for example through interviewing, conducting questionnaires, observing customers, or examining documentation. Thirdly, the time the information is needed and lastly the resources available for the collection of the information (Mertens & Wilson, 2012).Meanwhile, the evidence-based process is systematically and consistently selected, identified, and evaluated.

It involves the seven steps as analyzed. Step one is the identification of the evidence Systematic Literature Surveillance is conducted using many review services of journals, journals, guideline collections, and systematic review collections. DynaMed Content Sources is an example of a comprehensive list of sources. Step two involves the selection of the best available evidence (Rubin, 2013). All articles are evaluated for clinical relevance, and the relevant articles are further evaluated for validity in relation to the existing DynaMed content.

A summary of the most valid articles is made, integrated with the DynaMed content and the outline structure and overview statements are updated based on the overall evidence synthesis. The selection of an article is done completed by the editors with clinical training and expertise in scientific analysis (Rousseau, 2012). Step three requires critical appraisal wherein DynaMed there is a full-text evaluation of the articles. The full-text evaluation of articles in DynaMed is useful for; any article related in Level 1 has reliable evidence while Grade A has consistent high-quality evidence and based on information about abstract only.

Secondly, any articles that are effective and/or describe intervention or exposures in detail are necessary, and lastly any article representing the most significant guidance for a DynaMed topic. Step 4 requires reporting the evidence according to the objectives. The questions that arise are based on whether the relevant outcomes are reported in the main article, the most important outcomes to be reported in the DynaMed topic and their magnitude of the effect, and whether the clinical findings were significant.

The questions are also based on the methods of eliminating clinically significant differences and any limitations that can alter the trustworthiness of clinical conclusions (Rousseau, 2012).Step five involves synthesizing many evidence reports and DynaMed is done by considering the levels of evidence. Step six is basing overall recommendations and conclusions on the evidence for an inclusive point-of-care reference. Step seven is updating new evidence daily, therefore, changing the conclusions and recommendations due to the alteration of the available evidence.

The process allows comprehensive and immediate access to the preeminent evidence as it arises.