Module 8 Written Assignment

Descriptive variables can also be known as demographic variables. Descriptive variables

include age, gender, race, diagnosis, income category, education level, hospital unit, city, state,

and zip code (Sylvia & Terhaar, 2018). Tables, pie graphs, bar graphs, or histograms display

data. These variables capture specific characteristics of the population or event and link

relationships between variables (Kaliyadan & Kulkarni, 2019). Although they summarize

essential elements of a population or event, they can create an unknown bias and affect the study

results.

Outcome variables, also known as the dependent variables, measure the project results

and are influenced by the independent variable. These variables can be categorical, ordinal, or

continuous variables. When evaluating outcome variables, important information should include

the variable name, brief description, data source, range of values, level of measurement, time

frame for collection, and statistical tests (Sylvia & Terhaar, 2018). The outcome variable is the

presumed effect of the independent variable.

An outlier represents an extreme value in a distribution. The distance from the mean

value can help determine if an outlier exists (Sylvia & Terhaar, 2018). An outlier can indicate

insufficient data or an error in data entry. Studies show that an outlier can be determined if it is

two or three standard deviations from the mean or a value greater than 1.5 times the value of the

75th percentile (Sylvia & Terhaar, 2018). When managing an outlier, assess the reason for the

outlier and analyze the data with and without the outlier. According to Sylvia and Terhaar

(2018), before analysis, use statistical techniques like transforming the scale of an outcome

variable, nonparametric statistical tests that rely on distribution or Chi-square, and change

continuous variables into a categorical or dichotomous variable.

 Descriptive and outcome data are meaningful. The data gives a general summary and

describes a population. It can provide information to help understand a population and how to

better care for a specific population. In addition, this data can positively affect patient outcomes

because it can influence best practices used in the clinical setting. According to Conner and

Johnson (2017), nurses should understand and know how to analyze vital data related to practice

improvement projects to influence evidence-based practice and improve patient outcomes.

A confounding variable is a variable that is not included in the experiment but influences

the outcome of the results. They can misrepresent the relationship between an independent and

dependent variable and alter the results (Quality Matters, 2021). If confounding variables are

present, the study's findings can be unreliable. Potential confounding variables in the case study

include morbidity level, age, gender, and race. Sylvia and Terhaar (2018) stated that morbidity

level is a confounding variable between the intervention and comparison groups requiring

statistical testing. Other confounding variables could include age, gender, and race because they

can influence the distinct illnesses measured.

The different statistical tests used in the case study include the Independent t-test, Chi-

square, and Mann-Whitney U test. The Independent t-test determines the difference between the

means of independent groups (Sylvia & Terhaar, 2018). Age, high and low morbidity, change of

HBA1C, and change in the number of admissions were analyzed using the Independent t-test.

Chi-square tests determine the proportional differences between two or more groups (Sylvia &

Terhaar, 2018). Morbidity level, prevalent illnesses, and admission indicators were analyzed

using Chi-square. The Mann-Whitney U test tests the difference in ranks of scores of two

independent groups (Sylvia & Terhaar, 2018). Mann Whitney U test analyzed the HBA1C
results six months following the start of the intervention and the number of admissions in the

post-period.

The p-value measures the likelihood of a statistically significant difference between

groups. P-value will help determine the relation to the null hypothesis (Nahm, 2017). A p-value

of <0.5 is statistically significant (Sylvia & Terhaar, 2018). When the p-value is <0.5, there is

less than a 5% probability the null is correct. A high p-value suggests the evidence is not strong

enough to indicate an effect on the population. In this case study, there was statistical

significance noted in the morbidity level, cancer, diabetic retinopathy, difference in HBA1C pre-

and postintervention, number of admissions, and indicator of an admission

In this case study, the intervention group has a lower mean HBA1C in the

postintervention period when compared to the comparison group. The intervention group has a

mean decrease of 0.09 compared to the comparison group of 0.76. The intervention group has a

mean of 0.29 admissions in the postintervention period compared to 0.55 in the comparison

group. The intervention group has a mean decrease of 0.14 compared to the comparison group of

0.08 in the number of pre-intervention to post-intervention admissions. The intervention group

had 19.7% admissions in the post-period, whereas the comparison group had 34.7%. After

accounting for the confounding of morbidity level, HBA1C values were 0.88 less in the

intervention group, the number of admissions on average per year were 0.26 lower in the

intervention group, and the occurrence of admission were 64% less in the intervention group.

The DNP can use the data to improve patient health status. From the study results, the

intervention group lowered HBA1C levels and decreased the number of admissions.

Implementation of the intervention can improve patient health status and patient outcomes in the

concerning population.
 References

Conner, B., & Johnson, E. (2017). Research 101: Descriptive statistics. American Nurses Today,

12 (11) 52-55.

Kaliyadan, F., & Kulkarni, V. 0(2019). Types of variables, descriptive statistics, and sample size.

Indian Dermatology Online Journal, 10(1), 82–86.

https://doi.org/10.4103/idoj.IDOJ_468_18

Nahm F. S. (2017). What the P values really tell us. The Korean journal of pain, 30(4), 241–242.

https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2017.30.4.241

Quality Matters. (2021). Confound it! Or, why it's important not to.

https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/resource-center/articles-

resources/confounding-variables-in-resear

Sylvia, M., & Terhaar, M. (2018). Clinical analytics and data management for the DNP.

(2nd ed.) Springer Publishing Company, LLC.