Suggested structure for your Systematic Review (SR)

HS3018 Dissertation:

Suggested structure for your Systematic Review (SR)

Below you will find some general guidance on how to format your SR for the dissertation.

There will be variations in how you present your dissertation work, this will depend on the type of question you have picked e.g., Qualitative or Quantitative

It would be wise to read some published systematic reviews in areas aligned to your review to determine if there are any templates that may help you with presenting your work.

Title:

You should clearly state the Research Question for your SR using a framework. The focus of the review should be specified according to the PICO/PEO criteria.

* PICO is an acronym for Population; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

* PEO is an acronym for Population; Exposure; Outcome

Abstract (awarded as part of overall presentation):

It is recommended that this is something that you write after you have completed writing the rest of the dissertation. The abstract should be structured, providing the following information:

Background: provide a brief background with reference to the aim of the SR

Methods: refer to data sources, study eligibility, study appraisal and synthesis methods

Results: include a simple thematic analysis.

Conclusions and recommendations: Include a brief conclusion with implications for practice and research.

Typically abstracts are 300 words

Introduction (15%): Approx 900 words

You should provide some broad context to the topic area, who does it impact? (Including some statistics would be helpful here) and why this is an important topic (some reference to contemporary policy/guidelines is important).

You should also include some reference to what we currently know about the topic area (i.e., what is the current evidence base?). Overall, you should describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

Aims and Objectives: It is also important that you clearly articulate the aims and objectives of the literature review. Remember objectives are smaller bite size versions of the aim.

Research Question: It is important that you explicitly state the research question that your review will address with reference to a framework (e.g., PICO/PEO)

Methods (15%): Approx 900 words

The purpose of this section is to provide sufficient detail to the reader to enable another researcher to replicate the search for your critically appraised topic. It is important that you include reasons for the approach you have chosen.

You will need to describe the search strategy, including the methods used to identify relevant studies and how you will assess the quality of the identified studies.

Your methods section could include sub-sections such as:

Information sources -Describe all information sources employed in the search (such as databases used). You will want to provide a justification for the databases you chose. For this dissertation it is suggested you use 2 databases, you can include another database if you do not find enough papers.

Searchstrategy- include explicit reference in the concepts searched (it may be helpful to include this in a table format, see formative assignment guidelines). Reference to Boolean operators and your search concepts would be advantageous here.

Eligibility criteria -Specify study characteristics (such as PICO/PEO) and report characteristics (such as years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility. You will need to give a rationale for each with some references.

Study selection Outline the process for selecting the studies (i.e., how were the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to each study). The selection of studies is usually a two-step process 1) screening at title and abstract and 2) screening at full-text.

Quality Assessment: - Describe methods used for assessing the quality of the studies. What type of critical appraisal tool did you use? And what is the rationale for using the chosen tool?

Findings (45%): Approx 2100 Words

It is suggested that you include the following sections:

Selected studies This should include a flow diagram of study selection (templates are available for this - PRISMA). The flow diagram should include four main stages (identification, screening; eligibility and number of included studies). The number of exclusions, and reasons for exclusion, should be reported at the eligibility stage (i.e., full paper screen)

Study characteristics -Present relevant characteristics for which data were extracted (such as study size, PICOS, follow-up period). For example, you may have studies from different countries or that used different study designs. It is important that this information is reported alongside the citations. This should be a short paragraph and should refer the reader to a summary table.

Summary Table-For each included study present summary data in relation to the research design used, sample and the outcomes of interest or the themes identified. This should be presented in a table format. You may however make use of several tables to present your results if this seems logical.

Identifying Themes and Sub themes

Thematic Analysis or Narrative Synthesis to present findings

Discussion (20%): Approx 1200 words

This section usually breaks down into the following subsections:

Briefly describe your aims: Reintroduce the aim of the review to remind the reader.

Summary of evidence -Summarise the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome or theme (or other substantive finding). Provide an initial representative overview of the findings. It is important here to summarise this and not represent the findings. Provide an answer to your research question. If there isnt a clear answer, then state why this is the case.

Critical Discussion Discuss your findings within the context of existing literature and other evidence. Was there a consensus within the findings or was an overall effect/picture difficult to assess. Were there any contradictory findings, why may this have been so? (Consider context).

Recommendations (10%) Approx 600 words

Provide an overall conclusion, consider the limitations of the study, and present implications or recommendations for future research, practice, policy, or education.

HS3018 Dissertation Marking rubric September 19 BSc

Markers: please highlight or embolden relevant section and add mark allocated into the final column. An overall summary comment should be added at the end of the rubric.

Pass Fail Grade Outstanding/ very good

70-100% Good

60-69% Fair

50-59% Satisfactory

40-49% Poor

39% and below Marker to indicate grade awarded in this column.

Introduction (15%) 11-15 10 8-9 6-7 0-5 Background to research topic critically evaluated and a focused research question is clearly stated A clearly presented and accurate structured abstract was provided.

Very good background to topic, with very good consideration of current health care context.

Key terms defined.

Research question very well formulated.

Aims and objectives clear and explicit. A structured abstract was provided but some information may have been missing.

Good background to topic, with good consideration of current health care context.

Key terms defined.

Research question well formulated.

Aims and objectives clear and explicit.

An unstructured abstract was provided but contained relevant information.

Reasonable background to topic, with consideration of current health care context.

Key terms defined.

Research question formulated.

Aims and objectives identified. An abstract was provided but did not follow guidelines.

Limited background to topic, with limited consideration of current health care context.

Some key terms defined but not all.

Research question developed but unclear/ does not reflect background.

Aims and objectives identified but limited in scope. No abstract was provided.

Introduction and background to topic poorly considered. Relevance of topic poorly evaluated.

Key terms not defined.

Research question poorly formulated/ does not reflect background.

Aims and objectives limited/ not developed. 5

Methods (15%) 11-15 10 8- 9 6-7 0-5 Overview of the steps taken to identify your included studies

To include:

Databases accessed

Search terms used

Eligibility criteria

Chosen Appraisal tool

Study selection process outlined

A very good search strategy which is explicit and easily replicable.

Comprehensive set of search terms used

Very good inclusion/ exclusion criteria which are rationalized, relevant and appropriate.

Appropriate appraisal tool selected and justified against others.

Study selection process very clearly outlined A good search strategy which may be replicable.

Search terms well selected.

Good inclusion/ exclusion criteria which are relevant and appropriate.

Appropriate appraisal tool identified, with some rationales offered.

Study selection process clearly outlined

A reasonable search strategy but some areas are not clear.

Search terms appropriate but some may be missing.

Inclusion/ exclusion criteria reasonable but could have been developed further.

Appraisal tool identified.

Study selection process a little unclear

Search strategy outlined but some aspects omitted/ unclear.

Some search terms identified but a little limited.

Inclusion/ exclusion criteria included but limited.

Appraisal tool not identified or not justified.

Study selection process unclear Search strategy unclear and/ or incomplete.

Search terms not explicit;

Inclusion/ exclusion criteria not applied or are not relevant.

Appraisal tool not justified/ not identified.

No mention of how studies were selected

6

Findings and critical appraisal (30%) 22- 30 19-21 16-18 13-15 0-12 Findings from the research studies are synthesised and critically evaluated with regard to research principles / rigour

Overview of the number of studies identified by the search strategy

Accurate and complete flow chart.

Article summary table clearly details the studies: Aim, sample, methods and results.

Data expertly synthesised and clearly presented.

Very good evaluation of research findings in relation to research rigour (reliability/ validity/ transferability/ trustworthiness).

Flow chart complete but could be clearer

Article summary table clearly outlines the studies: Aim, sample, methods and results.

Data synthesised and clearly presented

Good evaluation of research findings in relation to research rigour (reliability/ validity/ transferability/ trustworthiness)

Reasonable flow chart which may have some gaps.

Article summary table clearly outlines the studies: Aim, sample, methods and results.

Reasonable attempt at synthesizing the data

Reasonable evaluation of research findings in relation to research rigour (reliability/ validity/ transferability/ trustworthiness) Flow chart included but has some errors.

Article summary table outlines the studies: Aim, sample, methods and results.

Some attempt to synthesise the data

Attempted to evaluate research findings in relation to research rigour (reliability/ validity/ transferability/ trustworthiness) but fairly descriptive. Flow chart inaccurate/ not included.

Article summary table may be unclear/ not included.

No real synthesis evident

Limited evaluation of research findings in relation to research rigour (reliability/ validity/ transferability/ trustworthiness) largely describing the results. 2

Discussion (20%) 13- 20 12 10- 11 8-9 0-8 Evaluate the strength of the evidence from the included studies in relation to other literature, policy and your field of nursing practice Very good critical evaluation of findings in the context of other literature. Very good consideration of how results support/ dispute other findings. Results placed in the context of area of practice. Research question answered. Good critical evaluation of findings in the context of other literature. Good consideration of how results support/ dispute other findings.

Results placed in the context of area of practice. Research question answered Reasonable critical evaluation of findings in the context of other literature. Reasonable consideration of how results support/ dispute other findings. Results placed in the context of area of practice. Research question answered Some critical evaluation of findings in the context of other literature. Some consideration of how results support/ dispute other findings. Results not always placed in the context of area of practice. Research question partly answered Limited evaluation of findings in the context of other literature. Limited consideration of how results support/ dispute other findings. Results not always placed in the context of area of practice. Research question partly / not answered 0

Recommendations (10%) 8-10 6 5 4 0-3 Recommendations for practice, research, and education are critically considered Very good recommendations for practice, research, education which are clearly derived from the research findings.

Very good consideration of the barriers and facilitators to implementing the proposed recommendations Good recommendations for practice, research, education which are clearly derived from the res

Good consideration of the barriers and facilitators to implementing the proposed recommendations Reasonable recommendations for practice, research, education which are derived from the research findings.

Some consideration of the barriers and facilitators to implementing the proposed recommendations Recommendations for practice, research, education are suggested but not obviously derived from/ clearly linked to the research findings.

Limited focus on how recommendations could be implemented Limited recommendations for practice, research, education. Unclear how these recommendations were obtained.

No focus on how recommendations could be implemented 0

Structure and presentation (5%) 5 4 3 2 0-1 Clarity and logic in presentation.

Assessment of academic style Professionally presented work that is logically developed.

Spelling and grammar correct, with very good academic style.

Professionally presented work that is logically developed.

A few minor spellings and/or grammatical errors may be evident.

Professionally presented work. The dissertation is well structured but lacks logical development in places.

Spelling and/or grammatical errors may be evident. Fair academic style. Work is clearly presented, but logical/coherent development of ideas is not always evident.

Spelling and/or grammatical errors may be included. Satisfactory academic style. Logical and coherent development is not evident within the dissertation.

Numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors may be present. Weak academic style.

1

References (5%) 5 4 3 2 0-1 Support from peer reviewed literature

Accurate and complete reference list, with correct citation practice demonstrated throughout

http://0-www.citethemrightonline.com.wam.city.ac.uk/Very good use of peer reviewed sources.

All references accurate and complete using City guidelines (within text and in reference list). Good academic style. Good use of peer reviewed sources.

City guidelines used.

Minor inaccuracies in citation practice within text or reference list. Reasonable use of peer reviewed sources.

City guidelines used.

Some inaccuracies in citation practice within text or reference list. Use of some peer reviewed sources.

City guidelines used.

Several inaccuracies in citation practice within text or reference list. Lack of use of peer reviewed sources.

City guidelines may not be used.

Numerous inaccuracies in citation practice within text and reference list/ reference list missing. 0

TOTAL 14

Feedback Summary

Thank you for submitting your dissertation.

Your second submission is exactly the same as your first submission, therefore your mark and feedback remains the same. If submitting the same document as your previous submission was an error, and you have extenuating circumstances which led to this, you may wish to consider submitting a late EC claim explaining that your error has only now come to light.

Introduction (5): Abstract is missing. The question is rather vague asking what are the experiences of receiving palliative care is like asking what the experiences are of receiving surgical care. Whilst there is some relevant information here, the introduction would have been enhanced with a definition of palliative care and the differences between it and End of Life care. As well as this a sound knowledge base about the group of people you are discussing, for example how many people get a cancer diagnosis in a year or in the past 5 years. How many people are terminally ill due to cancer and the types of cancer that more lightly to lead to terminal diagnosis, differences in gender, age and or race. Also, where the experience of palliative care was taking place, home, hospital, hospice, community, or care homes.

Methods (6): The purpose of this section is to provide sufficient detail to the reader to enable another researcher to replicate the search for your critically appraised topic. Unfortunately, you have not included adequate information for this to happen. It is suggested in the assignment guidelines that 2 databases are used, you have only used 1 as Medline is part of PubMed. There is also reference to free access to articles, however all databases are free if you use your university library account. There is no rationale provided for the choice of PEO rather than PICO. The following tables should have been included: PEO, Eligibility criteria and CASP. Stronger rationale for inclusion and exclusion criterion is needed, it is not sufficient to state that only articles written in English were chosen because it is most widely spoken and understood language in the scientific community, just because research is written in English it is not automatically valid/ reliable or transferable. The claim that research that involved people over age 40 would be considered due to ethical considerations needs to be reconsidered. There are many ethical considerations when conducting research where the population is terminally ill, assumptions have been in this paragraph which should either not be included or support with current evidence. Good point made that not all studies are created equal however this should be referenced. Limited understanding of CASP demonstrated.

Findings (2): The section requires a great deal of attention. The PRISMA flowchart is unreadable, therefore making your study selection process difficult to understand for example how many studies did you start with and how many studies were actually referred to in this systematic review. Vital information is missing in relation to study characteristics, for example, the author of the studies, country of publication and study design, there is more than one type of qualitative research. Other information missing is summary table for each of the studies included in this systematic review, in this table an outline of themes, subthemes and outcomes of the chosen article should have been included. This should have then been followed up with a thematic analysis or narrative synthesis to present the findings of chosen studies.

Discussions (0): A very short paragraph (3 sentences) has been presented for this section. In this section you should have revisited the aims of your systematic review, produced a summary of your findings, followed by critical discussion.

Recommendations (0): No recommendations for future practice, education or policy have been made.

Structure and Presentation (1): Avoid writing in 1st person this is a dissertation not a reflective account. Change language setting to English (United Kingdom). Avoid emotive language in academic writing. Apply the headings and subheading given in the suggested structure for your systematic review.

References (0): There are no in text citations within this work and Only 6 references listed, which appear to have been copied and pasted. City Harvard referencing guidelines have not been followed.

Areas for further development:

1. Revisit the assignment guidelines and teaching materials relating to qualitative systematic reviews, if you are not sure about what is required ask for help.

2. Alter your dissertation question so that it is specific

3. Revisit guidelines on how to use and create a PRISMA flowchart

MARK 14

SANCTIONS Sanction Awarded

Late submission per day for 4 days (- 5 marks) NA

Exceeding the word limit will incur the following sanctions:

0-10% over word limit no sanction

11-20% - minus 5 marks

21-40% - minus 10 marks

41-60% - minus 20 marks

Over 60% - to be resubmitted NA

Word count inaccurate or not disclosed (- 5 marks) NA

Failure to submit cover and/or coursework declaration sheet (- 5 marks each) NA

Breach of confidentiality /Dangerous practice (0%) NA

FINAL MARK 14

Marker One Name: Monica Bing Date 1/8/23

Marker Two: Name: Michelle Parker Date 1/8/23