BMSC13013: Research Project
Cover Page
BMSC13013: Research Project
Course coordinator: Dr. Saman Khalesi
Assessment 3 Manuscript
Due date: Friday of Week 12, 5:00 pm AEST.
Student name:
Student number:
Name of Discipline leader or Research Staff (Hands-on projects only):
Extension granted: include date (if no extension applied and granted remove this line)
Self-Assessment Rubric
You are required to complete this self-assessment rubric. Mark yourself out of 5 for each criterion, considering what is the requirement of the criterion. This activity should help you understand what you can improve before submitting your assessment. Your mark will not affect your markers judgment when evaluating your assessment.
Manuscript marking rubric
Criteria Fail (0) Fail (1) Pass (2.5) Credit (3.5) Distinction (4.5) High Distinction (5) Marks
Title & Abstract
Clear & succinct title AND abstract Title AND Abstract are not provided. Title OR Abstract is missing. Title does not clearly describe the main focus of the project AND Abstracts aim, methods, results, or conclusion do not reflect project description. Title OR Abstracts aim, methods, results, or conclusion needs improvement. A relevant title AND Abstracts aim, methods, results, and conclusion is provided. Title is concise (max. 20 words) and clearly describes the main focus of the research AND Abstracts aim, methods, results, and conclusion are exceptional. /5
Introduction
Background AND project aim(s), research question(s) (or hypothesis) Background, the gaps in the literature, significance of the project AND study aim(s) and hypothesis/ research question(s) are absent. Background, the gaps in the literature, significance of the project OR study aim(s) and hypothesis/ research question(s) are absent. Some important background information, the gaps in the literature, significance of the project OR study aim(s), and hypothesis/ research question(s) are missing or irrelevant to the project description. Minimal relevant background, the gaps in the literature, significance of the project AND study aim(s) and hypothesis/ research question(s) are provided. Relevant background, the gaps in the literature, significance of the project AND study aim(s) and hypothesis/ research question(s) are provided BUT need further clarification. Relevant clear background, the gaps in the literature, significance of the project AND study aim(s) and hypothesis/ research question(s) are provided in exceptional detail. /5
Methods
Accuracy and appropriateness methods (including design, participants/samples, data collection/management, measurements/outcomes, sample size, statistical analyses/data synthesis, ethical considerations if applicable, problems faced if applicable) No information on methods is provided. Most information on methods is missing. Minimal information regarding study methods is included BUT some are not appropriate/relevant for the project description and aim OR some important information is missing. Most information regarding study methods is provided AND is relevant BUT some sections need modifications/additional detail to make them appropriate for the context of the project description. Relevant necessary information regarding study methods is provided BUT minimal changes/clarifications are required. Relevant necessary information regarding study methods is provided in exceptional detail. /5
Results
Clarity of key findings (positive/negative/neutral) Key findings are absent. Limited key findings are presented BUT they are mostly incorrectly summarised. Key findings are presented BUT some are incorrectly summarised AND/OR inaccurate units and measurements are observed in some of the findings. Key findings are presented AND mostly are correctly summarised BUT some inaccurate units and measurements/ summaries are observed. Key findings are correctly presented AND units and measurements/ summaries are accurate and appropriate with minimal issues. Key findings are correctly presented AND units and measurements/ summaries are accurate and appropriate with no issues. /5
Use of table(s) and figure(s) No table(s) AND figure(s) are included. No table(s) OR figure(s) are included. 1 3 tables AND 1 2 figures are provided BUT they do not support findings/are irrelevant to the study. 1 3 tables and 1 2 figures are provided AND are relevant to the project BUT some information does not support the results OR error in presentation of table titles, figure legends or units was observed. Relevant 1 3 tables and 1 2 figures are provided that support the results BUT minimal error in presentation of table titles, figure legends or units was observed. Relevant 1 3 tables and 1 2 figures are provided that support the results with no error in presentation of table titles, figure legends or units observed. /5
Discussion
Summary and Interpretation of findings with critical appraisal of the literature and possible mechanisms/ justification Summary and interpretation of findings with critical appraisal of relevant literature (including reasons for their similarity and variation) AND possible mechanism/ justification of findings are not provided. Summary and interpretation of findings AND/OR critical appraisal of relevant literature (including reasons for their similarity and variation) AND/OR possible mechanism/ justification of findings are not provided. Minimal summary and interpretation of findings AND critical appraisal of relevant literature (including reasons for their similarity and variation) AND possible mechanism/ justification of findings are provided BUT some are irrelevant/ inappropriate in the context of the project description. Summary and interpretation of findings AND critical appraisal of relevant literature (including reasons for their similarity and variation) AND possible mechanism/ justification of findings are provided BUT they lack the depth AND require additional information/clarification. Summary and interpretation of findings AND critical appraisal of relevant literature (including reasons for their similarity and variation) AND possible mechanism/ justification of findings are provided BUT minor changes /clarifications are required. Summary and interpretation of findings AND critical appraisal of relevant literature (including reasons for their similarity and variation) AND possible mechanism/ justification of findings are provided with no repetition and exceptional detail. /5
Limitations and strengths of research Limitations AND strengths of the study are not identified. Limitations OR strengths of the study are not identified. Minimal limitations AND strength of the study are reported BUT they are ambitious/inappropriate in the context of the project. Most relevant limitations AND strengths are identified and described BUT some important information is missing AND additional information is required. Important relevant limitations AND strengths are identified and described BUT some sections need further discussion. Important relevant limitations AND strengths are identified and discussed in exceptional detail. /5
Conclusion
Summary of findings and practical implications (what the study outcomes mean for/add to the field/practice) and future perspective (what future investigations are proposed to address the limitations or advance the field) Summary findings relevant to research aim/questions AND Information on the implication of findings AND future perspective are not presented. Summary of findings relevant to research aim/questions OR Information on the implication of findings AND/OR future perspective is not presented. Summary of findings has minimal relevance to research aim/questions OR information on the implication of findings is not justified by the research OR future perspective is not relevant/justified by the study findings. Summary of findings is relevant to research aim/questions AND relevant information on the implication of findings AND future perspective are presented BUT some are over-ambitious in the context of the study. Summary of findings is relevant to research aim/questions AND appropriate information on the implication of findings AND future perspective are presented BUT minor improvements are required. Summary of findings is relevant to research aim/questions AND relevant and appropriate information on the implication of findings AND future perspective are presented in exceptional details with no mistakes. /5
References and citations
Use of evidence and accuracy of references and citations (10 to 25 scientific/reliable references) No references AND citations included. No references OR citations included. Less than 10 reliable/scientific references are included AND/OR they are not relevant to the study AND/OR most statements are not supported with evidence AND/OR mostly not following APA 7th requirements (for in-text citation and reference list) 10 to 25 reliable/scientific references are included AND they are relevant to the study AND/OR some statements are not supported with evidence AND/OR some deviations from APA 7th requirements (for in-text citation and reference list) OR some missed citations (not referenced properly) are observed) 10 to 25 reliable/scientific references are included AND they are relevant to the study AND cited/referenced appropriately BUT minor deviations from APA 7th requirements are observed OR a few statements are not supported with evidence. 10 to 25 reliable/scientific references are included AND they are relevant to the study AND cited/referenced appropriately AND all follow APA 7th requirements AND all statements are backed with evidence. /5
Presentation and general requirements
Presentation requirements, and writing fluency and accuracy The writing is not clear OR fluent AND there are frequent spelling and grammatical errors that detract from the content OR
None of the requirements is followed including: using template + self-assessment rubric, Cover page & page numbers; Size 12, Times New Roman font; 1 or double line spacing; No pictures/borders/images; Word limit (2000 2500 words). The writing is not clear OR does not transition fluently between paragraphs AND there are frequent spelling and grammatical errors that detract from the content.
OR
>4 requirements are not met. Minimal transitions between paragraphs are used AND the writing is sometimes clear BUT there are some spelling and grammatical errors throughout that detract from the content.
OR
3 and more requirements are not met. Minimal transitions between paragraphs are used AND the writing is generally clear AND there are minimal spelling and grammatical errors throughout, BUT they do not detract from the content.
OR
Two requirements are not met. Transitions between paragraphs are great AND the writing is clear BUT there are minimal spelling and grammatical errors throughout that do not detract from the content.
OR
One requirement is not met. Transitions between paragraphs are exceptional AND the writing is clear AND there are no spelling and grammatical errors throughout.
OR
All requirements are met. /5
Final Mark for Task 3 (out of 50) **Please REMOVE any section highlighted in orange (not black) before submitting your assessment**
Title
Max. 20 words. Give your project a working title that clearly describes the main focus of your research (which may or may not be the same as your proposal title, although the same project).
Abstract
Abstract should summarise your research and the findings.
It should be structured into these subheadings in the same order: Aim, Methods, Results, Conclusion.
Max. 150 words
Introduction
Define the topic clearly and discuss what is known about the topic (background) and accepted views that already exist.
Explain what is not-know/clear (or gaps) related to the topic and why you have done the research (significance).
State the aim(s), research question(s) (or hypothesis) of your project in relation to the background and gaps.
Approx. 250 350 words
Methods
Clearly outline the material and methods used in the research.
Details of experimental subjects (humans or animals) if applicable.
Details of data collection (for hands-on research).
Outline the data analysis and statistical methods you used.
Detail ethics clearance and consideration if applicable.
Approx. 400 550 words
Note: Although doesnt have to, many information here can be similar to the method section of your proposal. However, you should be able to add more details since you have already done this project.
Results
Clearly present the findings of your research.
One useful method of displaying results is to present key findings and the more startling and interesting findings first, to give them prominence, and then work down in rank order to the less significant aspects of the findings of the project.
A professional combination of text, tables (1 3 tables) and figures (1 2 figures) should be used to present results.
Tables and figures should be presented AT THE END of your manuscript after references. However, you must also refer to them in the text (in the Result section). For example: Figure 1 shows obesity data for City X over the past 10 years.
Avoid repetition, dont present same data both in text and table/figure. Please note, when you refer to a finding in the text or table you can briefly mention the finding (e.g. as shown in Table 2, around two-third of the participants (34%) had high blood pressure). However, you should not repeat all data from tables/figures in the text.
If applicable, units of measurement must be included when presenting numbers.
Approx. 600 700 words
Discussion
In the Discussion section, you aim to bring together in a coherent whole, your findings and interpretations and how you see these fit in with the bigger picture related to other literature on the topic.
Discuss how your results match with your aims and research question/hypothesis.
What is the relationship of your results in the context of current literature? Compare your findings with what already exists in the literature.
Dont forget to include references if you compare with previous literature.
Discuss the possible mechanisms or justifications for the results observed.
Describe the strength and limitations of your project.
Dont repeat results in this section. You should have reported them all in Results section already.
Approx. 400 550 words
Conclusion
Summarise the findings of your project in a sentence or two. Avoid over-speculating and drawing conclusions that are not fully supported by the data.
Note the application (meaning) of these findings and how it has addressed the research gap.
Propose meaningful suggestion for future research following this project.
Approx. 100 150 words
Acknowledgements
If applicable (not required), acknowledge all sources of support and funding for the project/experiment.
Max. 50 words
References:
Provide 10 25 citations including all authors, year, complete title, journal or book chapter, volume, inclusive page numbers, publisher (for books), city of publication (for books). The format must follow a standard for a journal that requires, e.g., best option is to follow the referencing of a journal in your discipline area (use of Endnote can really help) but should be consistent throughout.
Table and Figures:
List your tables and figures here (after reference list, at the end of your manuscript). Each figure and table should be numbered. Table headings usually go above the table and Figure legends go below the figure in your report.
Legends and explanatory notes should be placed above each table. Abbreviations used in tables should follow table legends in alphabetical order. Figure legends should be presented below figures, and abbreviations should be placed following figure legends.
No more than five (5) tables and figures (overall).
Word limit: Between 2000 to 2500 words excluding References, Table and Figures and Cover page but including in-text citation.
NOTE: Please only keep the headings and remove the descriptions (highlighted in orange) from your proposal submission.
Cover Page
BMSC13013: Research Project
Course coordinator: Dr. Saman Khalesi
Assessment 1 Proposal Part 2
Due date: Friday 11 August 2023, 5.00pm AEST.
Student name: Steph Pasco
Student number: s0194973
Self-Assessment Rubric
You are required to complete this self-assessment rubric. Mark yourself out of 5 for each criterion, considering what is the requirement of the criterion. This activity should help you understand what you can improve before submitting your assessment. Your mark will not affect your markers judgment when evaluating your assessment.
Proposal marking rubric (PART 2)
Criteria Fail (0) Fail (1) Pass (2.5) Credit (3.5) Distinction (4.5) High Distinction (5) Marks
Background information on the topic Background information is absent. Background information is not relevant to the research aim. Minimal relevant background information is provided BUT lacks the students own critical appraisal of the literature. Minimal relevant background information AND students own critical appraisal of the literature relevant to the research aim is provided. Relevant background information is provided in sufficient detail BUT students own critical appraisal of the literature relevant to the research aim needs further detail. Relevant background information is provided in exceptional detail AND includes students own critical appraisal of the literature relevant to the research aim. 4/5
Significance of the research The literature gap the research addresses/ the new knowledge it adds/ the contribution it makes to the field is absent. The literature gap the research addresses/ the new knowledge it adds/ the contribution it makes to the field is NOT relevant to the research aim. The literature gap the research addresses, and/or the new knowledge it adds and/or the contribution it makes to the field is minimally reported AND is relevant BUT is not logical in the context of the project. The literature gap the research addresses, and/or the new knowledge it adds and/or the contribution it makes to the field is reported in sufficient detail AND is relevant to the research aim BUT is not logical in the context of the project. The literature gap the research addresses, and/or the new knowledge it adds and/or the contribution it makes to the field is reported in sufficient detail AND is relevant to the research aim AND logical in the context of the project BUT needs further detail. The literature gap the research addresses, and/or the new knowledge it adds and/or the contribution it makes to the field is reported in exceptional detail AND is logical AND relevant to the research aim. 3/5
Methods (participants/material, eligibility criteria and sampling) Details of participant recruitment/materials selection AND eligibility criteria AND sample size calculation are missing. Details of participant recruitment/materials selection AND eligibility criteria AND sample size calculation are NOT relevant/appropriate in the context of the project description. Recruitment/materials selection and/or eligibility criteria and/or sampling methods used are reported in minimal details BUT some are not appropriate for the study design/logical in the context of the project description. Recruitment/materials selection and/or eligibility criteria and/or sampling methods used are reported AND are appropriate for the study design BUT not logical in the context of the project description. Recruitment/materials selection AND eligibility criteria (if applicable) AND sampling methods (if applicable) used are reported AND are appropriate for the study design and logical BUT need further details. Recruitment/materials selection AND eligibility criteria (if applicable) AND sampling methods (if applicable) used are reported AND are appropriate for the study AND detailed AND logical in the context of the project description. 3/5
Methods (design, measurements/tools, ethics requirements) Design AND measurements/tools proposed to collect data AND ethics requirements (human and animal studies) are missing. Design AND measurements/tools proposed to collect data AND ethics requirements (human and animal studies) are not appropriate for the proposed project. Design OR measurements/tools proposed to collect data OR ethics requirements (human and animal studies) are missing. Design AND measurements/tools proposed to collect data AND ethics requirements (human and animal studies) are reported minimally BUT some are not appropriate for the proposed project. Design AND measurements/tools proposed to collect data AND ethics requirements (human and animal studies) are reported AND are appropriate BUT need further details. Design AND measurements/tools proposed to collect data AND ethics requirements (human and animal studies) are reported in detail AND are appropriate. 3/5
Accuracy and appropriateness of statistical analysis/data management The statistical analyses/data management AND how they answer research questions are absent. The statistical analyses/data management AND how they answer research questions are not appropriate for the proposed project. Information on statistical analyses/data management OR how they answer research questions is missing. Information on statistical analyses/data management AND how they answer research questions are provided minimally BUT some are not relevant/appropriate for the proposed project. Information on statistical analyses/data management AND how they answer research questions are provided AND are relevant/appropriate for the proposed project BUT need further details. Information on statistical analyses/data management AND how they answer research questions are provided in detail AND are relevant/appropriate for the proposed project. 3/5
Expected outcomes Expected outcome information is absent. Expected outcome information is not relevant to the project description and aim. Information on the expected outcome is provided BUT how they answer research question (or address hypothesis) is missing. Minimal information on expected outcome AND how they answer research question (or address hypothesis) is provided BUT some are not appropriate/justified for the proposed project. Information on expected outcome AND how they answer research question (or address hypothesis) is provided AND appropriate/justified. Information on the expected outcome AND how they answer research question (or address hypothesis) is clear AND appropriate AND justified in exceptional detail. 3/5
Academic writing fluency and accuracy Quality of writing is poor with many spelling, structural or grammatical issues throughout AND claims are not backed with evidence. Quality of writing is poor with many spelling, structural or grammatical issues AND most claims are not backed with evidence. Quality of writing is adequate with some spelling, structural or grammatical issues. Few claims are not backed with evidence. Quality of writing is good with minimal spelling, structural or grammatical issues. Most claims are backed with evidence. Quality of writing is high with no spelling, structural or grammatical issues. Most claims are backed with evidence. Quality of writing is high with no spelling, structural or grammatical issues. All claims are backed with evidence. 4/5
Accuracy of references and citations (5 to 10 scientific/reliable references) No references OR citations included. Minimal unreliable/Scientific references OR citations included. Less than 5 reliable/scientific references are included. 5 to 10 reliable/scientific references are included BUT most citations and references are cited incorrectly based on APA 7th. 5 to 10 reliable/scientific references are included BUT most citations and references are cited incorrectly based on APA 7th. 5 to 10 reliable/scientific references are included AND all citations and references are cited correctly based on APA 7th. 5/5
Presentation requirements Proposal does not follow ANY of the requirements including Template (Part2) + self-assessment rubric, Cover page & page numbers; Size 12, Times New Roman font; 1 or double line spacing; No pictures/borders/images; Word limit (400 600 words). >4 requirements are not met. 3 and more requirements are not met. Two requirements are not met. One requirement is not met. All requirements are met. 3/5
Part 2 Mark (out of 45) 31/45
Part 2 Mark (out of 15) 11/15
Title
Exploring Gut Health, Probiotics, and Prebiotics Knowledge and Attitudes in Australian Adults: A Comparative Study of Probiotic Consumers and Non-Consumers.
Aims and Research Questions
This study aims to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of Australian adults regarding gut flora, probiotics and prebiotics focussing on differences between probiotic consumers and non-consumers.
Is there a difference in knowledge of gut health, probiotics, and prebiotics between consumers and non-consumersWhat are the differences in attitudes towards gut health, probiotics, and prebiotics between consumers and non-consumersHow frequently do Australian adults consume probiotic supplementsBackground and Significance
In 2021, Khalesi, Vandelanotte, Thwaite, Russell, Dawson, & Williams published an article that addressed a critical gap in nutrition and public health. Despite the growing acknowledgement of the pivotal role of gut health in overall well-being, a notable deficiency exists in comprehending adults awareness and attitudes towards gut health, as well as their perceptions of probiotics and prebiotics. Similarly, Quigleys review in 2018 underscores the necessity to expand our comprehension of the intricate interplay between gut microbiota and human health. In 2022, Williams, Tapsell & Beck further delved into the benefits of gut health and its associations with diverse health outcomes. Within this context, consumer education emerges as a crucial factor in ensuring accurate information dissemination about the impact of diet on the gut.
While this study does not claim to provide exhaustive answers regarding probiotic consumers and non-consumers, its significance lies in its potential to advance our understanding of the factors influencing dietary choices concerning gut health. From a pragmatic perspective, the studys findings offer actional insights for formulating dietary guidelines and communication strategies that align with consumers perceptions. By bridging this knowledge gap, the research contributes to the field by informing healthcare practitioners, educators and policymakers about effective strategies for promoting gut-friendly dietary patterns. Ultimately, this projects contributions extend to the potential enhancement of public health outcomes, the reduction of gastrointestinal disorders, and the cultivation of a more health-conscious society.
Methodology
This study employs a mixed-methods approach to explore the perceptions of Australian adults regarding gut health, probiotics, and prebiotics. The research effectively addresses critical questions. To gauge knowledge gaps, a survey akin to Fijan et als prior work (2019) will be administered, tailored to assess awareness and beliefs. While current time contracts prevent the immediate use of semi-structured interviews, this avenue remains open for future exploration, potentially yielding qualitative insights.
Comprehensive literature reviews will seek insights like Saarela et als study (2002) on consumer expectations. Additionally, content analysis of new articles and online discussion such as the Naturally Good Website article (May 10, 2023), will shed light on prevalent themes and sentiments, exposing inclinations toward cost-effective, consumable solutions for gut health improvement.
This strategy builds on established survey methodologies and harnesses secondary data analysis to uncover patterns in public attitudes and sentiments. Ethical considerations underpin the study, ensuring participant autonomy and well-being. Although time limitations constrain certain data collection aspects, this research provides an effective and ethical foundation for exploring the complex landscape of Australian adults' perceptions of gut health, probiotics and prebiotics.
Expected outcomes
The study aims to provide valuable insights into Australian adults understanding and perspectives on gut health, probiotics and prebiotics. Through the documented approach in the methodology, this study is likely, to reveal varying levels of knowledge, between consumers and non-consumers, revealing potential misinformation or awareness gaps in specific groups. The study could also bring light to unique attitudes towards gut health products, offering insights into motivations and obstacles. By examining consumption frequency, the study aims to deepen comprehension of dietary choices related to gut health, potentially guiding the development of tailored communication strategies and dietary guidelines. Ultimately, the results are anticipated to enhance our understanding of factors influencing dietary decisions within the context of gut health, further facilitating the promotion of informed health choices in society.
References
Diversified Communications Australia, Healthy Business, Naturally Good News. (May 10, 2023). Healthy gut, healthy mind? Heres what your customers need to know. https://naturallygood.com.au/natural-health/healthy-gut-healthy-mind-heres-what-your-customers-need-to-know/
Fijan, S., Frauwallner, A., Varga, L., Langerholc, T., Rogelj, I., Lorber, M., Lewis, P., & Povalej Bran, P. (2019). Health professionals knowledge of probiotics: An international survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(17), 3128 https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/17/3128Khalesi, S., Vandelanotte, C., Thwaite, T., Russell, A. M. T., Dawson, D., & Williams, S. L. (2021). Awareness and attitudes of gut health, probiotics and prebiotics in Australian adults. Journal of Dietary Supplements, 18(4), 418-432. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32588677/Quigley, E. M. M. (2019). Prebiotics and probiotics in digestive health. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 17(2), 333-344. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30267869/Saarela, M., Lhteenmki, L., Crittenden, R., Salminen, S., & Mattila-Sandholm, T. (2002). Gut bacteria and health foodsthe European perspective. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 78(1-2), 99-117. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168160502002350Williams, G. M., Tapsell, L. C., & Beck, E. J. (2023). Gut health, the microbiome and dietary choices: An exploration of consumer perspectives. Nutrition & Dietetics, 80(1), 85-94. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36221861/
FEEDBACK
Good attempt Steph, here are some suggestions for improvement. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
- Background: Probiotics and gut health need to be defined first. The role of gut health in overall well-being needs to be clarified with some examples of specific effects and mechanisms of effect. The first paragraph reads as a collection of study findings, not a review of literature with critical thinking involved.
- Methods: this is not a mixed-method study, it is a quantitative study as there is no collection of words, pictures, text, etc. If it claims it has open-ended questions, you will need to have data collected to prove this (there is no data available for open ended questions in the data-set).
- Even though this is a secondary data analysis project, as discussed they all need to be assumed as original studies so the method should refer to the current trial that will be completed and include every detail (recruiting, eligibility criteria, sampling, setting, measurements, tools, ethical clearance, sample size etc.).
- Methods, statistics: Not Included. Variable type definitions, analysis plan, statistical analysis proposed, the significant level all need to be included. The reference to Saarela et als study doesnt make sense, what is the intention of naming these studies?
- Also, please check APA 7threferencing and how to refer to and cite studies. It is preferred that instead of writing the names of the authors (which took 2-3 links of your first paragraph) to cite them correctly at the end. Also, all claims need to be referenced (e.g. Despite the growing acknowledgement of the pivotal role of gut health in overall well-being)
