Power point slide presentation of the final projectobjectivedi

PowerPoint Slide Presentation of the Final Project
Objective:
Dissemination is a critical part of a good research project. In
chapter 7 of Schmidt & Brown (2015), pages 514-516, the
authors discuss oral presentations. The PowerPoint (PPt) can be
a powerful tool and usually accompanies the oral presentation.
PowerPoint presentations enhance the oral presentation but care
must be taken to prepare the PPt so as not to distract from the
speaker. See this link for some tips on preparing a
PPt. http://www.garrreynolds.com/preso-tips/design/
Overview:
The PowerPoint (PPt) presentation is intended to be a
presentation. This assignment can be creative, but should be a
professional looking project. Microsoft Office offers a variety
of layouts that you can choose from for your PowerPoint.
Please keep your PPt between 7 to 15 slides. The slide limit
does not include the title slide or references.
Please review the following general guidelines for your PPT
presentation.
• Make your title short, summarizing the message of
your chosen study.
• Use font size that is readable and consistent.
• Avoid capital letters except at the beginning of
sentences and proper nouns.
• Try to use standard Windows fonts, such as Times
New Roman.
• Do not underline anything.
• Use bold, larger typeface for the main titles and
headings.
• Check the draft of your PPt against the rubric very
carefully to ensure all required components are included.

SOURCE: Governing (CERNIK SAYS—This is a good
publication to become aware of if your interest is the
study of American state and local governments)
HERE FOR THIS ARTICLE ONLINE:
http://www.governing.com/columns/public-finance/effect-
federal-
budget-cuts-states-localities.html#
The Effect of Federal Budget Cuts on States and Localities
When the federal government starts reducing its deficit, watch
out below!
BY: John E. Petersen | January 2011
The electorate made it clear in November: Congress should cut
up the federal credit card and
restore fiscal sanity. Road maps on how to do that were seldom
mentioned. And it’s no wonder,
since getting to a balanced budget will be exceedingly painful.
Right now, the federal deficit runs around $1.4 trillion dollars.
A big share of that -- $1 trillion -- is
cyclical and caused by the Great Recession and accompanying
stimulus spending and tax cuts. The
remainder -- $400 billion -- is structural or “built-in” to the
budget. With the current economy
recovering slowly, the federal government raises in current
revenues about 57 cents to 63 cents for
every dollar it spends. Even in good times, it raises only 90
cents for every dollar spent. Given the
existing tax system and the way Medicaid, Medicare and Social

Security are designed, that
structural deficit is destined to increase steadily. So we’ll have
to cut spending, raise taxes or a
combination of both.
But what programs do we cut and what taxes do we raise? The
answers unleash a political fight too
large for this humble column to take on. But we know one
thing: State and local governments are
deeply tied to federal finances, and they will feel the pain from
federal cost cutting and revenue
increasing.
In fiscal 2010, $654 billion in federal grants went to states and
localities -- an amount that equaled
26 percent of all state and local spending. A big chunk last year
represented funding from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, payments from
which have peaked and are rapidly
phasing out, reducing annual payments to state and local
governments to about $60 billion. But that
reduction in temporary federal outlays does not figure into
reducing the “structural deficit.” The $400
billion gap still must be closed. The billions in federal programs
directed toward state and local
governments -- and the multitude of tax preferences that benefit
them -- will provide fertile grounds
for filling the deficit hole.
Let’s look at grants, one of which is Medicaid. More of the
Medicaid load might be shifted to states,
which now annually contribute $150 billion of their own funds
to match federal grants of $220 billion.
The feds might save $35 billion by making that cost match 50-
50 across the board. Meanwhile,
federal grant programs for education send $80 billion per year

to the states; and another $200 billion
to income security, transportation and community development
programs. If the feds reduce all
grants by 20 percent, a $100 billion revenue hole would be
created in state budgets -- but only 25
percent of the federal structural budget gap would be closed.
That’s not even the major danger. Via their taxpayers, states
and localities receive indirect benefits
through federal tax deductions and credits. These “tax
expenditures” (foregone revenues because of
preferential tax treatments) amounted to $73 billion last year,
including the deductibility of state and
local property, income and sales taxes ($51 billion), and the
exemption of the interest on state and
local bonds and interest from federal income taxation ($22
billion). These preferences are on the
chopping block, and their loss or reduction would prove costly
to state and local governments whose
citizens would find their tax burden increasing.
Finally, there are indirect cost-cutting or tax-increasing
measures. Under federal tax laws,
homeowners now write off their mortgage interest costs. Over
the years, this favoritism has driven
up housing prices. Real estate values, now in very bad shape,
serve as the foundation for local
property taxes. But the feds lose $100 billion or so from the
interest deduction. That makes it an
attractive target for reducing the federal deficit. But such a step
might permanently bend down future
growth in housing prices and accordingly, the property tax base.

And there’s more. Expanded use of user charges and sales taxes
to enhance federal revenue would
mean intense intergovernmental competition for revenues. For
example, raising the federal motor
fuel tax by 25 cents to reduce the deficit would mean $30
billion in added federal revenues. But that
would curb the ability of states to raise such taxes, even in the
event of declining revenues.
Ultimately all tax collectors go to the same well for water.
State and local officials must prepare for the fiscal
Armageddon. This admonition may come as a
shock to newly elected governors and state legislators who rode
into office astride promises to cut
back government. They are likely to find that that job will be
done in Washington. Overnight, they
may have a lot less money to spend and more needs to spend it
on.
This article was printed from:
http://www.governing.com/columns/public-finance/effect-
federal-
budget-cuts-states-localities.html
Economic
Policy
Institute Brief ing Paper
1660 L Street, NW • Suite 1200 • Washington, D.C. 20036 •
202/775-8810 • http://epinet.org

MEASURING EMPLOYMENT
SINCE THE RECOVERY
A comparison of the household
and payroll surveys
by Elise Gould
Tracking the state of the overall U.S. economy requires accurate
employment measurements. How-
ever, the two primary measures of employment statistics—the
payroll survey and the household
survey—have shown differing trends and levels in employment
since the recession began in March
2001. Some differences between the payroll survey and the
household survey are detailed below:
• The payroll survey provides a more accurate picture of
employment trends in the U.S.
economy. In addition to being significantly larger (with a
sample size 600 times greater than
that of the household survey), it is also benchmarked annually
to unemployment insurance
tax records and less likely to be subject to large revisions or
misreporting.
• According to the payroll survey, employment has fallen by
726,000 jobs since the end of the

recession in November 2001 and employment has fallen by 2.4
million since the start of the
recession in March 2001. In contrast, the household survey
indicates that employment has
risen by 2.0 million since the recovery began and by 600,000
since the start of the recession.
• Adjustments for differences between the two surveys (e.g., to
account for self-employment or
multiple job holding) do not affect the difference in the trends
of the two surveys since 2001.
2
Nonpartisan government experts agree that the payroll survey
employment numbers are more
reliable than those from the household survey, despite Secretary
of Labor Elaine Chao’s erroneous
claim that experts do not know which survey is better (Utgoff
2003; Congressional Budget Office
2003).1 However, some analysts continue to mistakenly use the
household survey to measure
employment.2 Others incorrectly report trends in the household
survey, while ignoring the disconti-
nuity in the series that results from the January 2003 population
adjustment.3 The payroll survey’s

more precise measure of employment trends provide a clear
advantage to the more volatile and
less accurate household survey numbers.
What surveys provide employment statistics for the United
States?
Employment statistics for the United States come from both the
Current Population Survey (CPS)—
also known as the household survey—and the Current
Employment Statistics survey (CES), also
known as the payroll survey. The household survey is a sample
survey of about 60,000 households
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS). Its sample, based
primarily on the U.S. Census, is designed to reflect the entire
civilian noninstitutional population.
The payroll data are collected from employers’ payroll records
of about 400,000 individual
worksites. This information is gathered by the BLS from a
sample based on the unemployment
insurance tax records. Both the household survey and payroll
survey data are collected for the
week of each month containing the 12th of that month.
Why is the payroll survey more accurate than the household
survey?

• The payroll survey samples 400,000 business establishments.
This represents an average of 40
million jobs each month; in September 2003, 40.5 million jobs
were sampled (Getz 2003). In
contrast, the household survey samples only 60,000 households,
representing fewer than 70,000
workers. In September 2003, employment estimates were based
on a sample of 67,804 workers.
Thus, the payroll survey sample covers 600 times as many
workers as the household survey.
• The payroll survey employment estimates are benchmarked to
the unemployment insurance
tax records. This yearly process anchors the payroll
employment numbers to the comprehen-
sive count of all nonfarm payroll employment. The household
survey, on the other hand, is
benchmarked only once a decade to the decennial census,
resulting in a less precise employ-
ment measurement than the payroll survey.
• Large revisions and misreporting are also less likely for the
payroll than for the household
employment numbers. In recent years, the household survey has
undergone far more exten-

sive revisions than the payroll survey, particularly with respect
to population estimates. In
January 2003, an additional 576,000 jobs were added.
3
• The household survey’s smaller sample size contributes to the
increased variability in its
employment estimates. Figure 1 displays the employment
estimates for the household survey
and the payroll survey. The household survey is extremely
volatile, indicating its inadequacy
for analyses of month-to-month employment trends.
• Statistical agencies use the payroll survey for measuring
employment trends and for other analyses
of economic conditions. For instance, the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) uses employment,
hours, and wages from the payroll survey to estimate gross
domestic product (GDP) for service
industries, and the BLS relies on payroll employment and hours
(supplemented with self-employ-
ment from the household survey) to estimate productivity. The
strengths of the household survey
are in measurements that the payroll survey is not set up to do,
such as the unemployment rate,

self-employment, the employment-to-population ratio,
occupations, and breakdowns by demo-
graphic. While the household survey is useful for measuring
this type of economic information,
the payroll survey is a much better tool for measuring
employment levels and trends.
FIGURE 1
Payroll and household survey employment trends
* Adjusted for population discontinuities.
120
122
124
126
128
130
132
134
136
138

140
E
m
pl
oy
m
en
t i
n
m
ill
io
ns
Household survey employment*
Payroll survey employment
Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July
1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003
2003
E
m
p
lo
ym
e

n
t
(i
n
m
ill
io
n
s)
4
Government experts agree that the payroll survey is more
accurate
Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics have commented on their
preference for the payroll survey numbers over the household
survey numbers:
“The establishment [i.e., payroll] survey better reflects the state
of labor markets, the Congressional
Budge Office believes, not only because other indicators also
imply rather weak labor market
conditions but because large revisions or misreporting appears
less likely for the establishment than
for the household data. Data on tax withholding conform better
to the establishment survey’s results

than to the household survey’s; in addition, both the share of
employed people who are working part
time for economic reasons and the still-low labor force
participation rate indicate weaker labor
markets than those existing at the trough. Three other measures
suggest the same conclusion:
during the first half of the year, the unemployment rate rose,
both initial and continuing claims for
unemployment insurance remained elevated, and the help-
wanted index fell.” (emphasis added)
—Congressional Budget Office 2003, p. 11
“It is our judgment that the payroll survey provides more
reliable information on the current trend in
wage and salary employment. The payroll survey has a larger
sample than the household survey—
400,000 business establishments covering about one-third of
total nonfarm payroll employment.
Moreover, the payroll survey estimates are regularly anchored
to the comprehensive count of
nonfarm payroll employment derived from the unemployment
tax records.” (emphasis added)
—Bureau of Labor Statistics 2003, pp. 4-5
A response to critics of the payroll survey
Some have speculated that the household survey provides a
better indication of the trend in em-

ployment at and around turning points in the business cycle.
These critics question whether the
payroll survey accurately and fully picks up new businesses,
known as “firm births.” This problem
may be especially exacerbated when measuring employment in a
recovery.
In its estimates of employment, the BLS addresses the problem
of firm births and deaths using
past history and various estimation techniques to provide an
adjustment factor to the current series.
In addition, updates to the payroll survey are conducted
annually to adjust for any discrepancies.4
In September 2003, Allan Meltzer speculated in The Wall Street
Journal that the BLS may have
been undercounting post-recession firm births. Meltzer was
expecting the revised numbers to show
an increase in employment because generally revisions are
upwards in a recovery; that is, revised
employment numbers add to the ranks of the employed.
However, the BLS announced in October
that its analysis of detailed tax records through March 2003
would result in a downward revision of
total nonfarm payroll employment by approximately 145,000 for
the March 2003 reference month
(BLS 2003b).

A second critique of the payroll survey is that it leaves out self-
employment. However,
because the household survey employment reports do not
distinguish between the self-employed
who are gainfully employed and those who are searching for
work—and because the numbers of
5
self-employed nonearners would be expected to increase during
tough economic times—the omission
of self-employment numbers from the payroll survey may more
accurately reflect overall employment
trends.
Population adjustments to the household survey
The BLS periodically revises the household survey to account
for new Census Bureau population
estimates. In the last four years, there have been two
population adjustments: one in January 2000
and one in January 2003. The shift in January 2000 was based
on the new population estimates
from the decennial Census and added about 1.5 million persons
employed. The shift in January
2003, based on new estimates of faster than expected population

growth since the 2000 Census,
added another 576,000. At each shift, a discontinuity occurs in
the series, reflective of only new
population estimates and not an actual jump in employment.
To make valid comparisons with the numbers since January
2003, previous employment
numbers must be adjusted upward to account for new population
estimates. The BLS warns that
use of the household survey employment numbers without
making these adjustments makes any
estimates of trends since January 2003 not comparable with
those for earlier months (Bowler et al.
2003). The household employment estimates in Table 1 reflect
these population adjustments.
One of the most egregious mistakes made by some analysts
reporting employment trends is to
omit these population adjustments in their estimates. One such
omission was in a Heritage Foun-
dation report, based on the household survey numbers, which
claimed that more than one million
new jobs had been created between October 2002 and October
2003 (Beach and Hederman 2003).
This report improperly includes the 576,000 jobs added in
January 2003 due to the upward revi-

sion to population that month. Additionally, the payroll survey,
a better indicator of employment
trends, indicates a loss of 291,000 jobs during the same time
period (see Table 1).
Unfortunately, because BLS publications do not highlight the
break in series caused by the
increase in population in January 2003, this is a relatively
common mistake in the media. Robert
TABLE 1:
Employment trends using the payroll and household surveys
Date Payroll employment Household employment*
March 2001 132,527,000 138,002,503
November 2001 130,900,000 136,586,119
October 2002 130,408,000 137,532,428
October 2003 130,117,000 138,014,000
November 2003 130,174,000 138,603,000
Oct. 2002 to Oct. 2003 -291,000 481,572
Nov. 2001 to Nov. 2003 -726,000 2,016,881
March 2001 to Nov. 2003 -2,353,000 600,497
* Population adjusted.
6
Samuelson, columnist for The Washington Post, and Floyd

Norris, reporter for The New York Times,
left out the BLS updates to the household survey data in their
reporting of employment trends
(Norris 2003; Samuelson 2003a). To his credit, Samuelson
promptly posted a correction to his
employment numbers (Samuelson 2003b). Use of the payroll
survey, which is less susceptible to
large revisions and more accurately measures employment,
would have avoided these and other
similar miscalculations in employment numbers.
What are the trends in employment?
The National Bureau of Economic Research determined that the
trough in business activity oc-
curred in November 2001 for the recession beginning in March
2001. Therefore, we examine
trends since the beginning of the recession and since the
beginning of the expansion—March 2001
and November 2001, respectively.
Since the beginning of the recession, employment has fallen by
2.4 million jobs. Since the
end of the recession two years ago, there have been about
726,000 jobs lost, marking this as a
period of “jobless recovery.”
How is employment defined in the household and payroll

surveys?
The household survey counts people as employed during the
reference period if they worked as a
paid employee, worked on a farm, were self-employed, worked
without pay in a family business,
or worked in a private household. The household survey also
counts people as employed if they
are on unpaid leave during the reference period. The payroll
survey, however, only counts people
as employed if they were nonfarm workers who worked for pay
for any part of the reference
period (including persons on paid leave), excluding the other
categories of workers measured by
the household survey. To reconcile these differences, the
household survey must be reduced by
agricultural workers, the self-employed, unpaid family workers,
private household workers, and
those on unpaid leave.
On the other hand, the payroll survey counts each job separately
when employees work at
more than one job. The household survey counts each employee
only once regardless of the
number of jobs they hold. The household survey employment
numbers must be increased to

include multiple job holders to make it comparable with the
payroll survey.
How does the household survey reconciliation
alter employment numbers?
To better understand why the surveys display different trends, it
is important to make the two
surveys as comparable as possible. In this section, the
household employment numbers are
adjusted to account for the differences in the surveys.
Specifically, this reconciliation subtracts
agriculture, self-employment, private households, unpaid family
workers, and those on unpaid
leave, and adds multiple job holders to the reported household
employment numbers. The house-
hold employment numbers are seasonally adjusted to make the
two surveys comparable.
7
120
122
124
126
128

130
132
134
136
138
140
E
m
pl
oy
m
en
t i
n
m
ill
io
ns Payroll survey employment
Household survey
employment reconciliation
As shown in Figure 1, the household and payroll survey
employment levels ebb and flow,

sometimes drawing close together and sometimes shifting
further apart. In January 1998, the
difference between the two surveys was 7.3 million. In July
2000, the surveys were as close as
4.7 million, while in October 2003, the difference was back up
to 7.9 million.
The household survey reconciliation brings the employment
estimates much closer together
(see Figure 2). For much of the series, payroll employment is
higher than the reconciled house-
hold survey. The July 2000 gap shrinks from 4.7 million before
the reconciliation to 2.4 million
and the October 2003 gap shrinks from 7.9 million to 158,000.
The levels of employment are
much closer and the difference in trends for the recovery is
reduced by about one-third. The
household survey reconciliation indicates a gain of one million
jobs since November 2001 and
100,000 jobs since March 2001. With the reconciliation, the
difference in employment trends
since November 2001 is 1.7 million, whereas without the
reconciliation, there is a difference of
2.7 million between the household and payroll employment
trends (see Table 1).

The employment trends of the payroll survey and the household
survey reconciliation still
produce divergent results, though the differences are smaller
than before the reconciliation. The
fact remains that the household and payroll surveys report
different trends since 2001. Because
the trends are different, it is important to report the employment
numbers from the more accurate
survey. The payroll survey remains the best indicator of
employment trends.
FIGURE 2
Reconciliation of payroll and household survey employment
Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July
1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003
2003
E
m
p
lo
ym
e
n
t
(i
n

m
ill
io
n
s)
8
Conclusion
The payroll survey has a clear advantage in measuring
employment trends in the U.S. economy. The
payroll survey employment numbers are based on one-third of
total nonfarm payroll employment and
are benchmarked to the complete enumeration of nonfarm
payroll employment yearly. Overall, the
payroll survey provides a more precise and less volatile measure
of employment and employment
trends than the household survey.
December 2003
Endnotes
1. Chao’s comment was that the “experts may argue about the
advantages and disadvantages of each survey”
(Chao 2003).
2. See, for example, Melloan (2003).

3. See The Heritage Foundation (2003) and Norris (2003).
4. The BLS has revised its updating process to produce these
corrected estimates even faster than in previous
years. For instance, the data up through March 2003 will be
updated in February 2003 rather than June 2004.
9
References
Beach, William W. and Rea S. Hederman Jr. 2003. “Tax cuts
working: Over one million new jobs.” The Heritage
Foundation, WebMemo No. 363. Washington, D.C.: The
Heritage Foundation.
< http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm363.cfm >
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Division of
Research and Statistics. 2003. Reconciliation of
Household and Payroll Employment. Washington, D.C.
Bowler, Mary, Randy E. Hg, Stephen Miller, Ed Robison, and
Anne Polivka. 2003. Revisions to the Current
Population Survey Effective in January 2003. Washington,
D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003a. The Employment Situation:
August 2003. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor
Statistics. USDL 03-467.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003b. The Employment Situation:
September 2003. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Labor Statistics. USDL 03-523.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003c. CES Net Birth/Death Model.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Business Cycle Dating
Committee. 2003.
< http://nber.org/cycles/july2003.html >
Chao, Elaine. 2003. Where the workers are. The Wall Street
Journal, December 9.
Congressional Budget Office. 2003. The Budget and Economic
Outlook: An Update. Washington, D.C.: Congres-
sional Budget Office.
Kathleen Utgoff. 2003. Commissioner, Bureau of Labor
Statistics before the Joint Economic Committee. U.S.
Congress, September 5.
Melloan, George. 2003. That ‘jobless recovery’ isn’t so jobless
after all. The Wall Street Journal, December 9.
Meltzer, Allan H. 2003. A jobless recovery? The Wall Street
Journal, September 26.
Norris, Floyd. 2003. Grasping at the statistics on the self-
employed. The New York Times, December 6.
Getz, Patricia. 2003. Personal correspondence with the Division
Chief, Current Employment Statistics, December 9.
Samuelson, Robert. 2003a. Economic turnaround? The
Washington Post, July 30.
Samuelson, Robert. 2003b. The ‘big media’ myth. The
Washington Post, August.

Chapter 20
Disseminating Evidence Through Presentations, Publications,
Health Policy Briefs, and the Media
Copyright © 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams
& Wilkins
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer • All Rights Reserved
Importance of Dissemination
Primary goal of dissemination is to facilitate transfer and
adoption of research findings into clinical practice or
disseminate results from evidence-based practice and evidence-
based quality improvement projects.
Dissemination
Builds cache of evidence available for discovery
Increases chance of translation of evidence into practice
Increases quality of care through informing evidence-based
decision making
2
Essential Information Needed Prior to Planning a Podium/Oral
Presentation
Analyze your audience:
Who are they? What’s their background? How many?
Assess the technology capabilities/resources:
AV equipment available? Recording the presentation? Access
to internet? Microphone? Tech support on hand?

Plan the content:
Length and format of presentation? Content to be addressed?
Expectations? Handouts?
3
BOPPPS Model for Presentation Development
BOPPPS is an interdisciplinary model for developing
presentations. It’s based on audience analysis and confer ence
purpose.
Bridge
Objectives
Pretest
Participatory learning
Post test
Summary
4
Developing a Great Slide Presentation
Present a minimal amount of material on each slide
Use bullet points
Timing: one slide for every 30 to 60 seconds
Font: size- 24 to 32; type should be consistent throughout
Photographs or graphics enhance presentations
Test use of multimedia within the presentation on site; have a
“plan B” in case it doesn’t work!

5
Converting the Presentation to Publication
Dissemination is incomplete until you convert your presentation
into a publication.
Plan time for multiple drafts/revisions.
Goal: submit manuscript for publication within 90 days of oral
presentation.
6
Question #1
Which of these strategies is the best advice to podium speakers
who are using slide presentations?
Use several different fonts and font sizes throughout the
presentation
Present as much written material as possible on each slide
Vary the slide background from slide to slide
Change slides not less than every 30 seconds
7
Answer to Question #1
D. Change slides not less than every 30 seconds
Rationale: Changing slides faster than every 30 seconds does
not give the audience an opportunity to process the content.
Alternately, presenting too much content on one slide usually
means that font size needs to decrease and less white space is
seen, which makes reading difficult. Varying slide backgrounds

and font types and sizes between slides is distracting to
audiences.
8
Disseminating Through Panel Presentations
Panel is usually made up of a moderator and panelists
Provides a mechanism to share different perspectives on the
topic
Effective way to disseminate
information/experiences/perspectives from various professions,
clinical sites
Both formal and informal formats can be utilized
9
A Panelist’s Dos and Don’ts
10
Responsibilities of Moderator: Preparing for the Panel
Presentation
Before the Panel Presentation:
Prepare an overview of the panel’s purpose, brief biographical
introductions of panelists, and their evidence-based topic
Speak with panelists individually to obtain information about

their presentation and expertise
Serve as a liaison for exchanging logistic information
Assure that panelists’ remarks meet the session
11
Responsibilities of the Moderator During a Panel Presentation
12
Disseminating Through Roundtable Presentations
Informal way to disseminate information to small groups
Typically 6–12 people
More informal, conversational atmosphere
Allow for group discussion about practical application of
content
Need suitable room; often AV equipment not available
Use printed handouts if necessary
13
Disseminating Evidence Using Poster Presentations
Allows more interaction between presenter and participants
Allows dissemination of preliminary research data or evidence
reviews
Posters presentations are:

Usually displayed for longer periods of time
Less intimidating for presenters
Better for visual learners
Plan for:
Poster creation
Printing
Transportation
14
Disseminating Evidence to Small Groups #1
Evidence-Based Grand Rounds
Designed for clinicians to speak directly to their colleagues
In person or internet-based grand rounds
Evidence-Based Clinical Rounds
Smaller in scope than grand rounds
Used to present finding from unit- or department-level EBP
projects back to the other members of the unit/department
15
Disseminating Evidence to Small Groups #2
Brief Consultations
Informal
“Hallway consultations”
On-the-ground approach to facilitate discussion
Digitizing Evidence Communications
Utilizing technology can be very effective in disseminating
information to a targeted audience
Podcasts

Videocasts
Webinars
Social media
16
Disseminating Evidence at Hospital/Organizational and
Professional Committee Meetings
In preparing, consider:
What is the composition of the audience?
What do they know about the topic?
How much time do I have?
Remember—
Time is tight
Stick to the key points
Anticipate latecomers
Anticipate questions the group might have
17
Disseminating Evidence Through Journal Clubs
Evolved over the years
Held in a variety of settings
Provides opportunity for clinicians to share and learn
Typically led by an advanced-level clinician who understands
research design, methods, statistics, but may be led by faculty
mentor or trainee
On-site journal clubs
Online journal clubs

18
Responsibilities of the Journal Club Leader
Before the Journal Club:
Decide how the article is going to be chosen
Disseminate the article and information about location/time to
participants
Secure the site
During Journal club:
Clearly communicate the purpose and expectations
Use open-ended questions to facilitate discussion
Actively listen
Avoid the appearance of preferences or bias
Monitor the flow of discussion to stay on topic
19
Question #2
Journal clubs are an effective mechanism for enhancing which
of the following aspects?
Clinician’s ability to conduct research studies
Building expertise and confidence in reading and appraising
research studies
Identifying patient preferences
Helping participants better understand how to write PICO(T)
questions

20
B. Building expertise and confidence in reading and appraising
research studies
Rationale: Participation in a journal club helps build expertise
and confidence in reading and appraising research studies.
Journal clubs are not focused on writing PICO(T) questions,
build clinicians skills on producing primary research nor
directly address patient preferences.
21
Steps in Disseminating Evidence Through Publication
Find a mentor or collaborate on a joint writing project with
experienced author(s)
Generate the general concept/idea
Decide what type of publication the idea would best fit
Plan and organize the manuscript outline
Adopting a positive attitude
Select a journal (see next slide)
Develop the content following publisher’s guidelines!
Develop a timeline for completion of manuscript sections,
including literature review
Proofread the manuscript before submitting it
22
Questions to Ask in Selecting the Right journal for Publication

Is the journal peer-reviewed?
What is the journal’s impact factor?
What is the profile of the journal’s readership?
What is the turnaround cycle for review?
What is the “in-press” period (time between acceptance and
publication)?
What are the technical specifications?
Is the journal an open or closed access journal?
Are there specific reporting guidelines for selected
manuscripts?
It’s critical to follow the journal’s guidelines for authors when
preparing your manuscript!!
23
Question #3
Which of the following areas is the least important to address
when choosing a journal for a manuscript submission?
The readership profile of the journal
Whether the article will have an accompanying commentary
The lag time between manuscript acceptance and its publication
The average length of time it takes for peer review
24
B. Whether the article will have an accompanying commentary
Rationale: The readership profile is important to know, as this
will determine whether there is a good “fit” between journal and
manuscript. Turnaround times for review and between

acceptance and publication are important, as clinically relevant
research results should be disseminated as quickly as possible to
support practice changes. If the manuscript submitted is well
supported by evidence and/or has a sound research design, then
whether or not a commentary will accompany it should not
matter.
25
Disseminating Evidence to Influence Health Policy
Health policy briefs allow opportunity to provide evidence to
inform policy creation Should be
Succinct
Written in language that legislators can understand
Examples of topics of policy briefs
Health care financing
Quality and safety of patient outcomes
Risk/benefit analysis of cost reduction alternatives
Human resource needs
26
Working With the Media to Disseminate Evidence #1
The basics:
Always engage your public relations or marketing department
before engaging with the media
Have a clear and newsworthy message that is easy to understand
Know the audience you intend to reach
Formulate a plan
Develop a “pitch”; make your case quickly why a reporter

should cover your story
27
Working With the Media to Disseminate Evidence #2
When working with media, DON’T:
Use scientific jargon
Wait for hours to return calls; call back immediately
Expect a story to name every contributor
Assume the reporter is familiar with your project or discipline
Dictate the “proper” angle to take
Talk about only the positive aspects; discuss the chall enges or
limitations as well
Don’t ask to see a copy of the story before it is published
28
Do It Yourself (DIY) Opportunities to Disseminate
Write an Op-Ed or Commentary
Follow publication guidelines
Show thought leadership and expertise
Short (typically 500–800 words)
Disseminate using Social Media
29
Question #4

There are many opportunities to disseminate your work through
various media. Which of the following is likely to reach the
largest audience?
Podium presentation at a large conference
Poster presentation at a large conference
Publication in a peer-reviewed journal
News story
30
C. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal
Rationale: Although presentations at large conferences (both
podium and poster) and having the news do a story on your
work are exciting and offer opportunity to reach a large
audience, publication in a peer-reviewed journal provides you
the best opportunity to disseminate to the largest audience for
many years to come.
31
Nurs 406
PowerPoint Rubric
Rev. 8/9/2015 PDR
Rev. 12/2016 PDR

Proficient Outcome
Competent Outcome
Developing Outcome
Points
Possible
Actual
Earned
Points
Title & Author
(3 – 5 pt)
Title is short & to the point. Student
name & credentials are beneath the
title. School is correct: University of
Louisiana Lafayette
(1-2 pts)
Missing Title, Name and /or school
(0 pts)
Missing Title, Name, and school
5

PPt - Overall
Appearance
(14-20 pts)
Arrangement is sequential for research
report. Professional creative
appearance. Format with consistent
font in size and color(bullets align,
minimal use of color. Contains 5-15
slides.
(7-13 pts)
Professional research order not followed. Font
is not consistent in size and color. Contains 5 -
15 slides. Formatting not consistent
throughout the presentation.
(1-6 pts)
Information is scattered or
disorganized. Lacks creativity.
Contains less than 5 and/or more
than 15 slides.
20
PPt - Content

(55-65 pt)
Contains all components of the research
critique: Introduction, Problem,
Purpose, IV & DV, Hypotheses,
Conceptual or Theoretical framework,
ROL, Methods, Design, Results,
Discussion, Significance to nursing.
Each component is concise and to the
point. Minimal full sentences used.
(20-54 pts)
Missing no more than 2 components of the
research critique: Problem, Purpose, IV & DV,
Hypotheses, Conceptual or Theoretical
framework, ROL, Methods, Design, Results,
Discussion, Significance to nursing.
Components are unclear; use of full sentences
dominates the presentation.
(1-19 pts)
Missing greater than 2 components
of the research critique.
Organization of the research
elements is unclear and rambling.
Components are all described in full
sentences. Concepts are lost in the
wordiness of the presentation.
65
PPt - APA &
Spelling

(8 – 10 pts)
APA style citations and references are
correct. No spelling or grammar errors.
(5-8 pts)
Minimal problems with APA citations and/or
references; less than 5 citation and/or
reference errors. Minor spelling and/or
grammar errors; less than 5 errors.
(1-4 pts)
Major problems with APA, spelling
and /or grammar. Greater than 5
errors in APA, spelling, and/or
grammar.
10
Total 100
The following program policy applies:
3. Written Assignments and Final Project:
a. Are to be submitted by the due date and time.

Nurs 406
PowerPoint Rubric
Rev. 8/9/2015 PDR
Rev. 12/2016 PDR
b. Students failing to meet the deadline will receive
an automatic 50% reduction on their paper prior to
actual grading. If the student fails to submit
within the next 24 hours, a
grade of “0” will be assigned.
c. It is the student’s responsibility to recognize
their failure to submit and notify the
instructor or academic coach within the 24
hour time frame. Contact should be made
via
email for further instructions. (This is not
for routine use. It is only for late
assignments.)

Power point slide presentation of the final projectobjectivedi

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (15)

Similar a Power point slide presentation of the final projectobjectivedi

Similar a Power point slide presentation of the final projectobjectivedi (20)

Más de MARK547399

Más de MARK547399 (20)

Último

Último (20)

Power point slide presentation of the final projectobjectivedi