NR 559 Week 3 Research Design Comparison Example

Course	NR 559 Research Methods and Evidence-Based Practice for Professional Nursing Practice
Week	3
Paper type	Study design comparison
Length	About 1,110 words, 2 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Chamberlain University
Program	MSN
Updated	September 2026

Free sample paper for NR 559 Week 3

Study Design Comparison: A Randomized Trial, a Prospective Cohort and a Before-and-After Unit Project, Each Judged by the Finding It Could Return for One Question About Walking Older Inpatients

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 559: Research Methods and Evidence-Based Practice for Professional Nursing Practice

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title fixes one question at the head of the page and judges each design by what it could actually tell a nurse about that question, rather than by its textbook rank. Student APA 7 title page.

Study Design Comparison: A Randomized Trial, a Prospective Cohort and a Before-and-After Unit Project, Each Judged by the Finding It Could Return for One Question About Walking Older Inpatients

The Question

For people 65 and over on a general medical ward who walked on their own before coming in, does helped walking, scheduled two or more times a day, compared with usual care, keep their mobility and daily function intact one month after discharge?

Three designs could address this question. Each is described below by the finding it could return, with the textbook account kept to what is needed.

Design 1: Randomized Controlled Trial

What it would do. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to the walking program or usual care, and outcomes are measured by assessors who do not know the assignment.

What it could return. A difference in mobility or function at one month between two groups that were alike in every respect except the program, apart from chance. If the walking group retains more mobility, the difference can reasonably be attributed to the program. A trial of this kind in older veterans found that patients helped to walk as often as twice a day held on to their community mobility at the one-month follow-up, whereas the comparison group lost ground, although daily activities did not differ (Brown et al., 2016).

What it could not return easily. Whether the program works when delivered by ordinary unit staff, because trials often use dedicated research staff. Whether it works in groups excluded by eligibility criteria, such as patients with dementia. And, if the trial is small, precise estimates of rarer outcomes such as falls or nursing home placement.

Design 2: Prospective Cohort Study

What it would do. Older inpatients are followed from admission, their mobility during the stay is measured, for example by accelerometer or nursing documentation, and outcomes after discharge are compared between those who walked more and those who walked less.

What it could return. An estimate of how strongly in-hospital mobility is associated with later outcomes, across a larger and more varied population than a trial usually includes, including patients a trial would exclude. A cohort of older medical patients linked mostly staying in bed with later loss of daily function, moves to nursing homes and death (Brown et al., 2004).

What it could not return. Proof that walking causes better outcomes. Patients who walk more are often less ill, and statistical adjustment cannot fully remove that difference. A cohort answers "who does better" more reliably than "what would happen if we changed practice."

Design 3: Before-and-After Unit Project

What it would do. A unit introduces a walking program and compares outcomes, such as length of stay or discharge destination, in the months before and after the change, sometimes with a comparison unit.

What it could return. Evidence that the program can be delivered by ordinary staff in a real unit and what happens to measurable outcomes when it is. Quality improvement projects of this kind have reported increased mobility and shorter stays after general medicine units introduced a mobility program (Hoyer et al., 2016).

What it could not return. Confidence that the change caused the outcome, because other things change over time: staffing, patient mix, discharge practices and seasonal illness. A comparison unit helps but does not remove this problem.

The Finding You Could Act On

For our unit's decision, the three findings do different jobs. The trial tells us whether walking helps, under conditions where the program is delivered reliably. The cohort tells us how much mobility matters across the kinds of patients we actually see, including those trials exclude. The unit project tells us whether ordinary staff can deliver a program and what happens when they do.

The finding we could act on most directly is the trial's, because it addresses cause: if we change practice, it suggests what to expect. But the trial's participants were almost all men, cognitively intact and had short stays, which differs from our population. The unit project's finding is closer to our setting but weaker on cause. The best basis for action combines them: the trial for whether the program works, the unit project for whether it can be delivered, and the cohort for how widely it might matter.

What a Mixed-Methods Approach Would Add

None of the three designs above asks why older patients stay in bed on units that allow walking. A qualitative study of patients, nurses and technicians would answer that, and its findings would shape how any walking program is designed. Combining a trial or unit project with qualitative interviews, a mixed-methods approach, would show both whether a program works and what gets in its way. For our unit, the qualitative question is at least as important as the effect question, because the effect has already been tested elsewhere and the barriers to delivering it are local.

A mixed-methods design also helps interpret disappointing results. If a unit program fails to increase walking, interviews can show whether the cause was staffing, equipment, fear of falls or patient reluctance, each of which calls for a different fix.

Cost and Time

The designs differ in what they demand. A trial requires ethics approval, consent, randomization and masked follow-up, and takes a year or more. A cohort study requires follow-up after discharge but no intervention. A unit project can begin within weeks but needs careful measurement to be interpretable. For a unit seeking to improve practice rather than to publish, the practical sequence is to rely on existing trial evidence for effect and run a well-measured unit project for implementation.

What the Comparison Shows

Ranking designs in a fixed hierarchy would place the trial first and stop there. Judging them against one question shows that each returns something the others cannot. For a practice question on a real unit, the most useful evidence set includes at least one trial for effect, observational evidence for breadth and implementation evidence for feasibility. Evidence-based practice frameworks emphasize matching the design to the question and combining evidence with clinical expertise and patient preference (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019). The next step is to critique the trial closely, since it carries the most weight for the effect question.

The unit's evidence-based practice council has endorsed that sequence.

Each design, in short, answers part of the question, and the unit needs all three parts.

References

Brown, C. J., Foley, K. T., Lowman, J. D., MacLennan, P. A., Razjouyan, J., Najafi, B., Locher, J., & Allman, R. M. (2016). Comparison of posthospitalization function and community mobility in hospital mobility program and usual care patients: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(7), 921-927. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1870

Brown, C. J., Friedkin, R. J., & Inouye, S. K. (2004). Prevalence and outcomes of low mobility in hospitalized older patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52(8), 1263-1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52354.x

Hoyer, E. H., Friedman, M., Lavezza, A., Wagner-Kosmakos, K., Lewis-Cherry, R., Skolnik, J. L., Byers, S. P., Atanelov, L., Colantuoni, E., Brotman, D. J., & Needham, D. M. (2016). Promoting mobility and reducing length of stay in hospitalized general medicine patients: A quality-improvement project. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 11(5), 341-347. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2546

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

Reading the NR 559 Week 3 instructions

The third week asks you to compare research designs that could address your practice question. The prompt typically wants a description of designs, their strengths and weaknesses, and which best answers the question. Put one tightly worded question at the top, so every design is judged against the same thing. For each design, describe it briefly and then say what finding it could actually return for this question, and what it could not. Where possible, point to a real study of that design on your topic. Explain which finding you could act on and why, recognizing that different designs answer different parts of the question. Consider whether a mixed-methods approach would add understanding, and compare cost and time. Ground each design in a real example, referenced in APA 7 alongside a methods text.

How this NR 559 Week 3 example is built

The comparison opens with a single question about assisted walking for older medical inpatients. A trial section explains randomization and masking and cites a trial showing preserved community mobility, noting its limits on delivery and generalizability. A cohort section explains observational follow-up, cites a study linking low mobility with decline and explains why it cannot prove cause. A unit project section cites a quality improvement project showing feasibility and shorter stays, with its limits on causation. A section explains which finding a unit could act on, combining the three. Sections on mixed methods and on cost and time close the paper. Each section ends by naming the gap the next design fills.

Where the points sit in the NR 559 Week 3 rubric

Design comparisons are commonly marked on accurate description of designs, clear reasoning about what each can show, relevance to the stated question and a justified conclusion. Judging each design against the same question, rather than ranking designs abstractly, shows applied understanding. Describing what each could return, with a real example, makes the comparison concrete. Stating what each design cannot show demonstrates critical thinking. Explaining which finding supports action, and how designs combine, reflects evidence-based practice. Recognizing the value of qualitative or mixed-methods work for implementation adds depth. Practical considerations of cost and time show realism. Design examples and methods sources cited in APA 7 support the comparison.

NR 559 Week 3 help from the desk

Comparisons often recite a hierarchy of evidence and declare the trial best without asking what the question needs. Judge each design against your question. Another weakness is describing designs abstractly without saying what finding each would produce. Be specific. Some students overlook what a design cannot show, such as a cohort's inability to establish cause. State the limits. Avoid ignoring feasibility evidence, which matters for implementation. Consider qualitative methods for questions about reasons. Use real studies as examples where possible, and check that their designs are described accurately before relying on them. Keep examples current and check each design label against the methods section of the article, since authors sometimes describe a cohort as a trial.

Get a NR 559 Week 3 example written to your instructions

Send the prompt with whichever two designs or two articles your section named, plus any comparison table it wants filled, and a custom NR 559 Week 3 comparison written to that pairing arrives in 24 to 48 hours. First one free. Include the unit question you are comparing them against and the example is built on that question rather than a generic one.

More NR 559 papers and MSN samples

NR 559 Week 3 questions, answered

Do I have to pick a winner?

You have to pick one for this question, which is a different thing from declaring a design superior in general. Say which you would rely on for the decision in front of you, then say what the other would still be worth reading for. A comparison that ends by recommending both usually means the question was never made specific enough to choose from.

Can I compare two studies instead of two designs?

Check your prompt, since some sections build the week from two named articles and others from design types. Where articles are supplied, the comparison still runs on what each design permitted rather than on which paper was written better, and the two articles then serve as worked instances of that point.

What if the same design appears on both sides?

Then the comparison moves down a level, to how each study built its version: who was enrolled, what the other group was given, and how the outcome got captured. Two studies sharing a design label can still be answering different questions, and saying where they diverge makes a stronger week than restating the label twice.

Where can I find a free NR 559 Week 3 sample paper?

The three-design comparison for hospital walking is the NR 559 Week 3 sample above, fully shown. If your question calls for comparing other designs, share it with our team and a comparison can be written.

Which design does the NR 559 Week 3 sample favor?

None alone. The trial tells whether walking helps, the cohort how widely mobility matters and the unit project whether staff can deliver it.