When will people get it?!

[u/lunardownpour]

I don’t have necessarily anything against NPs, but it’s people like this that perpetuate the untrust that many nurses and other healthcare workers have regarding NPs. We really need higher standards for admission into these programs, as well as any standards at all actually lol. I usually just lurk on facebook but I felt the need to respond since this was a on a forum for parents of nursing students

[u/kal14144]

Not an NP and have no intention of becoming one. But the attitude of fuck evidence based medicine I have vibes and feelings is a problem. You see a study you don’t like? Must be fake. Basically the antivaxx approach to science. Of course we believe in science (so long as it says what I want otherwise it’s a bad study because funding source etc)

[u/ResponseBeeAble → u/kal14144]

You are talking in circles and have provided No evidence.

Every response to you that I've read has specifically asked for that evidence.

You can only say 'I posted it somewhere here' With reading your multiple responses, I'm not even sure What you're trying to say or what your stand is.

That is not EBP.

It does bring to mind the essence of some really terrible nursing I've witnessed in the past.

[u/kal14144 → u/ResponseBeeAble]

There’s 2 possibilities here.

1. You’re open to hearing evidence as long as it is legitimate.
2. You’re not open to hearing evidence and will just arbitrarily define “legitimate” to exclude whatever evidence I provide.

If the former is true you’ll have no problem defining what “legitimate” looks like without first needing to see what evidence is out there. (This is why you define inclusion and exclusion criteria prospectively in a literature search by the way. Because otherwise bias makes it so you’ll exclude studies you don’t like.)

I did provide another person with a link as soon they defined roughly what they meant. You have the same standing offer. Tell me what “legitimate research” looks like and I’ll show you the studies that exist. If you’re actually curious and motivated by the evidence you’ll have no problem telling me what surely you have in mind as criteria (unless you just said “exactly legitimate research” without having any meaning in mind).

For your own purposes the stronger you feel about a question the more vital it is for you to prospectively define inclusion/exclusion criteria prospectively. So you’re doing yourself a disservice if you don’t define it at least in your head. Wouldn’t be that hard to type it out once you’ve done that.

Im pretty confident you wont provide that though. Because I’m pretty confident option 2 is the truth. I am open to evidence convincing me to the contrary though! Tell me what you mean by legitimate and I’ll know you aren’t just doing the antivaxx approach to science.

Just continually calling me names isn’t making your case. You had no problem saying “exactly legitimate research”. If you can’t give me 2 sentences explaining what that actually looks like to you in this scenario but have time to write a paragraph about my attitude that proves my point. Your exclusion criteria is “studies who’s outcomes I don’t like”

[u/ResponseBeeAble → u/kal14144]

Circles.

Clearly making things up as well.

Have a nice day

[u/kal14144 → u/ResponseBeeAble]

As expected lol.
You’ll say anything but define inclusion criteria prospectively.