Comparing your systematic review
Comparing your systematic review
In this exercise you will look at another published review on your topic to see how others have done it. Think about the following questions and go through the document to see what has been done well, what is unclear and what could have been done better.
You can use the published review as a model for your review in terms of what to do and what not to do, and for ideas on how to present information.
In your discussion you can compare the findings from your review with the findings of the published review. You can also cite the published review in your background section to justify why your review is needed. Dont forget to include it in your reference list.
1) How does the published systematic review compare to your proposed review?
What is the research question and/or research objectives of the review that you found?
How does the question (or objective) of the review you found compare with the question/objectives you developed?
Has the published review attempted to answer a framed or unframed question? Does the review address the same type of question you intend to ask in your review? That is, does your found review(s) focus on effectiveness or the same aspect as intended in your question?
Look at how the results have been presented in the systematic review you found. What information has been included in any tables? Has anything important been omitted?
2) Describing the content of the published systematic review
When you look at the results section of the published systematic review can you answer these questions?
What study designs did the authors include? How many studies were included? Were the studies appraised? If so, how? Does this differ from your proposed approach? If studies were appraised, how did the authors use the appraisal when reporting results?
Where were the studies conducted? Is this relevant to the review question or objective(s)?
How are the PICO elements described?
Who was included in the review? Do you know how many study participants involved across all studies?
What interventions or exposures of interest were included?
What comparisons are made?
What outcomes were measured/reported?
How do the elements of the PICO mnemonic (participants, intervention or exposure, comparison, and outcomes) in the review(s) you found compare with the approach your team has proposed?
3) Did the authors of the published systematic review answer their question (or meet their objectives)?
Apart from whether the review question was answered, are there any other findings from the review that are important? How can you tell?
What did the review authors conclude? Did they identify any important gaps in research? If so, list them.
Does the review(s) your team found raise any issues that you hadnt thought about? If so, what are they? Keep a record as it may be useful later when doing your review.
4) After looking at the published systematic review, do you want to modify your review in any way?
W3 (SR)Student
Structure of your review
Introduction
Brief background on topic and why a review is needed with the use of supporting literature (additional sources to those included in the review analysis).
Research question and/or objectives (this should tell readers what the review aimed to do, both with your broad question and objectives that are more directive).
Method and Analysis
Description of the search strategy including the use of key words, and the database tools/features that were utilised as part of the search strategy which are covered in workshop 2 and with library resources (e.g. MeSH headings; Boolean operators; truncations; wildcards; limits).
You also must explain the reasons why you chose the studies that you included in your review (inclusion/exclusion criteria).
Description of the critical appraisal process (the evaluation of the methodological soundness of the papers). You must describe what the appraisal process was for at least four relevant papers (remember the results of the appraisal are reported in the results section).
Synthesis
Narrative summaries (of key aspects, for example, study design, study participants, intervention/exposures, outcomes measured, and results/findings) from at least four relevant papers. This is where you summarise the key characteristics from each study (note this is not a summary of each study but a summary of the information in the columns of your grid. You will need to use your judgement about which information is important to include in the text of your review).
Comparison from different studies (similarities, differences, gaps, and/or inconsistencies).
You MUST include your grid/table as a table with APA7 formatting conventions (Part A). Data from the grid should be referred to in your narrative summary.
Discussion & Conclusion
What is the answer to your research question when interpreting all the studies reviewed? Did you meet your research objectives?
How does your review compare with other reviews on the topic?
What are the implications of your results?
Analysis of strengths and limitations of the included studies
Identification of any gaps to address in future studies.
Attachments (These are NOT included in the word count)
Title page & reference list
Refer to https://latrobe.libguides.com/apa7/home & https://apastyle.apa.org/style grammar-guidelines/paper-format/title-page
Research question: Does participation in mentorship programs (I) improve resilience (O) among students (P) compared to those without support (C)
Research objective/s: To investigate the factors influencing academic resilience, including coping strategies, demographic differences, support systems and the effectiveness of interventions
.
Author (year) Aim/Objective (study design) Demographics Intervention (dose) Outcomes Results Limitations Critical appraisal
Frisby, Brandi N., & Vallade, Jessalyn I. (2021)
The purpose of the study is to find out if students who take part in mentorship programs are more resilient than students who do not receive such support. In keeping with the journals emphasis on academic failures and successes, this study will employ a multilevel methodology to evaluate the influence of mentorship on the growth of academic resilience. This study be somewhat experimental in nature and will track two student groups for the duration of an academic year: one group will get mentorship, while the other group will act as a control group without receiving any additional support. The study will cover a crucial stage of academic development by focussing on students between the ages 15-22, which includes both high school and university students. To guarantee a representative sample, it will have a varied demographic profile in terms of cultural background, gender, and socioeconomic status. Due to this diversity, the study will be able to investigate the different effects of mentoring on resilience across a range of different backgrounds, and academic levels, which is consistent with the multilevel approached covered within the journal. Including kids with different backgrounds will give a thorough understanding of how well mentoring develops resilience. The main intervention will be a mentorship program. Throughout the academic year, participants will meet with a mentor every two weeks. The goals for each one, to two-hour sessions will be to enhance academic success, provide emotional support and teach resilience building techniques. The interventions dosage and design complement the journals focus on structured support networks as a strategy for building resilience. The principle result will be an increase in resilience, as assessed by a validated scale of resilience (Connor Davidson Resilience Scale, for example). Student participation, mental health, and academic success will be secondary outcomes. These results align with the journals emphasis on fostering academic resilience and rebounding from any obstacles. The publication addresses the beneficial effects of organised support and interventions on academic resilience, though the precise findings will depend on your research. It is anticipated that, in comparison to the control group, kids taking part in the mentorship program will exhibit greater resilience scores, increased academic achievement and enhances emotional wellbeing. The non-randomised design, possible bias in self-selection during participant selection in the mentorship program, and the unpredictability of mentor-mentee interactions are some possible drawbacks. These restrictions are comparable to those covered in the publication, which emphasises how difficult it is to quantity resilience and how complicated and multifaceted academic achievement is. Although the journal acknowledges the potential influence of external factors, such as family support and academic achievement, which may have an impact on resilience. Moreover, the study should take into account the long-term sustainability of resilience which is gained through mentorship, an important factor which the journal touches on through its exploration of resilience development overtime. Overall , the studys design is sound in exploring the impact of mentorship on resilience, a key area of focus within the journal.
References
Frisby, B. N., & Vallade, J. I. (2023). Minor setback, major comeback: A multilevel approach to the development of academic resilience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 115(3), 456-472. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000592Author (year) Aim/Objective (study design) Demographics Intervention (dose) Outcomes Results Limitations Critical appraisal
Natchaphan Phanthunane (2023) The purpose of this research is to investigate the connection between university students in Northern Thailand who participate in mentoring programs and their growing resilience. The study uses a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative interviews to learn more about students experiences in the mentorship programs with quantitative questionnaires to gauge resilience levels. The methodology integrates both statistical data and personal tales to enable a thorough understanding of the role mentoring plays in resilience. A sample of 18-30-year-old university students from a variety of academic disciplines in Northern Thailand are included in the study, which focuses on both urban and rural university campuses. The studies selection of students with a wider age range and more varied variety of academic background reflects the journals focus on the ways in which different demographic group are affected by different aspects such as psychological self-care and self-esteem. Engaging students in an official mentorship program with academic mentors is the interventions main component. Over the course of a semester, the mentorship program is planned to consist of twice-weekly meetings with an emphasis on academic counselling, personal growth, and emotional support. The study compares students with varying program involvement levels to look at differences in mentorship intensity. Changes in self-esteem, mental health status, and psychological self-care practices, all major themes in the journal are secondary outcomes, and the qualitative component investigates how students view the influence of mentorship on their capacity to manage academic challenges. The primary outcome is the degree of academic resilience, which is assessed using a resilience scale designed specifically for educational settings. It is hoped that, in comparison to non-participants, adolescents in the mentorship program will demonstrate greater resilience and improved mental health outcomes. It is anticipated that the qualitative data will show the students find mentorship especially helpful in stress management and enhancing self-care routines, offering nuanced perspectives that are consistent with the journals findings on mental health and resilience. One of the possible drawbacks could be the fluctuations in students interactions with mentors, which could impact how consistently the interventions effects are felt. The use of self-reported metrics for resilience and mental health is another drawback since it may lead to response bias. Furthermore, the findings applicability to other areas may be impacted by the cultural environment of Northern Thailand. with an emphasis on the distinctive cultural and educational context of Northern Thailand, this study advances knowledge of how structured mentorship might improve resilience in an academic setting. By integrating quantitative data with first-hand accounts, the mixed-methods technique enhances the study; nevertheless, it also highlights the need for additional longitudinal research and the possibility of cultural bias.
References
Phanthunane, N. (2023). Factors associated with self-esteem, resilience, mental health, and psychological self-care among university students in Northern Thailand. Journal of Psychological and Educational Research, 15(2), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12345-023-09876-5
