Assessment;

Discussion stating the problem and research question

Assessment type;

Discussion

Word limit/length;

700 words (all inclusive of in-text citations, reference list,)

Overview

Choose a topic, develop a problem statement and formulate a research question that critically examines an area of personal interest in Mental Health located within your discipline or course specialisation. The format of the research question will fit the type of critical review that suits your topic and problem statement. You will discuss this process.

Learning Outcomes

This assessment task is aligned with the following learning outcomes:
1. Develop a research question and problem statement to guide critical examination of an area of personal interest in Mental Health, located within your discipline or course specialisation.

Instructions;

Use , associated readings 1.2a-e, and the Assignment rubric (over page) as guidance:

Write your assignment as a discussion, including:

1. Problem statement (significance of the research problem);

2. The systematic review type that best fits the problem;

3. Structured question;

4. The question format (e.g. ‘PICO’, ‘PICo’, ‘PEO’) and how the question fits the format;

5.
Justification of question format referring to Reading 1.2 by Munn et al. (2018) and your problem statement.

6.
Reference/s (a minimum of 5 references)Assignment Rubric – CRH

Grade:

Evidence

High Distinction

Assignment instructions have been precisely followed and no unnecessary material has been included. Your persuasive yet concise problem statement perfectly suits the chosen review type and is explicitly relevant to your research question. The outstanding question is flawlessly structured and its relationship to the format is skilfully shown. An excellent, suitably brief justification for the question format coherently refers to the problem statement and includes sound referencing in the correct style.

Distinction

Assignment instructions have been followed and no unnecessary material has been included. Your problem statement is coherent, concise, and strong; it is suitable for the chosen review type and relevant to the research question. The question is well-structured, and the parts of its format are very appropriately specified. A thorough, suitably brief justification is given for the question format, refers to the problem statement, and includes at least one correctly cited reference in the recommended style.(a.) Problem Statement

Staff morale or workplace culture is a workforce phenomenon that certainly, on occasion, challenges

every organisation (Day, Minichello & Madison, 2006). Morale is a formidable indication of

organisational well-being and efficiency (Brode, 2012). The consideration of morale is imperative as it

can have substantial and widespread impacts and consequences for an organisation (Day et al., 2006).

So often, organisational culture can be deep-seated and challenging to shift. (Brunges & Foley-Brinza,

2014). Attaining, supporting, and maintaining workforce culture is one of the many tests associated

with leadership (Brode, 2012).

Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors can influence staff morale. Professional support, leadership traits

and management styles, which are all extrinsic factors, are the leading themes in poor morale amongst

nurses and healthcare workers. By conducting a literature review, these factors can be explored and

analysed. The significance of morale has been thoroughly documented in nursing literature, however,

there are no systematic reviews pertaining to how differing factors of leadership generate workplace

culture influence (Stapleton, Henderson, Creedy, Cooke, Patterson, Alexander, Haywood, & Dalton,

2007).

(b.) The Systematic Review Type

The most appropriate systematic review typology for this topic of research is an experiential

(qualitative) review, with the emphasis on evaluating nurses’ perceptions of leadership traits that

influence staff morale. Munn, Stern, Aromataris, Lockwood, & Jordan (2018) convey that the question

format guides its development, therefore influencing the type of review required. As the research

question is specifically examining the subjective experience of nurses’ perceptions, a non-positivist

approach is best suited (Munn et al., 2018).

(c.) The Structured Question

What factors of leadership do nurses perceive as influential on staff morale?

(d.) The Question Format

The PICo format, in this instance, is employed to drive the formation of the question and examine the

population’s subjective perception of the phenomenon of significance within a particular environment

(Munn et al., 2018).

Population – nurses

Phenomenon of Interest – factors of leadership

Context – influential on staff morale

(e.) Justification of Question Format

In guaranteeing that primarily an appropriate question i ssolicited, and that it is associated with the

issue, this stipulates the foundation for retrieving the material from diverse areas, (Munn et al, 2018).

Submitting the formulated question using the PICo technique, is a methodical formula which identifies

the problem statement and makes sure all sections of the question will augment evidence-based

searching of the research (Milner & Cosme, 2017). Munn et al (2018) highlights the magnitude of

generating a well-structured and precise question to advance with colleCORRESPONDENCE Open Access

What kind of systematic review should I
conduct? A proposed typology and
guidance for systematic reviewers in the
medical and health sciences
Zachary Munn* , Cindy Stern, Edoardo Aromataris, Craig Lockwood and Zoe Jordan

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews have been considered as the pillar on which evidence-based healthcare rests.
Systematic review methodology has evolved and been modified over the years to accommodate the range of
questions that may arise in the health and medical sciences. This paper explores a concept still rarely considered by
novice authors and in the literature: determining the type of systematic review to undertake based on a research
question or priority.

Results: Within the framework of the evidence-based healthcare paradigm, defining the question and type of systematic
review to conduct is a pivotal first step that will guide the rest of the process and has the potential to impact on other
aspects of the evidence-based healthcare cycle (evidence generation, transfer and implementation). It is something that
novice reviewers (and others not familiar with the range of review types available) need to take account of but frequently
overlook. Our aim is to provide a typology of review types and describe key elements that need to be addressed during
question development for each type.

Conclusions: In this paper a typology is proposed of various systematic review methodologies. The review types are
defined and situated with regard to establishing corresponding questions and inclusion criteria. The ultimate objective is
to provide clarified guidance for both novice and experienced reviewers and a unified typology with respect to review
types.

Keywords: Systematic reviews, Evidence-based healthcare, Question development

Introduction
Systematic reviews are the gold standard to search for, col-
late, critique and summarize the best available evidence re-
garding a clinical question [1, 2]. The results of systematic
reviews provide the most valid evidence base to inform the
development of trustworthy clinical guidelines (and their
recommendations) and clinical decision making [2]. They
follow a structured research process that requires rigorous
methods to ensure that the results are both reliable and
meaningful to end users. Systematic reviews are therefore
seen as the pillar of evidence-based healthcare [3–6]. How-
ever, systematic review methodology and the language used

to express that methodology, has progressed significantly
since their appearance in healthcare in the 1970’s and 80’s
[7, 8]. The diachronic nature of this evolution has caused,
and continues to cause, great confusion for both novice
and experienced researchers seeking to synthesise various
forms of evidence. Indeed, it has already been argued that
the current proliferation of review types is creating chal-
lenges for the terminology for describing such reviews [9].
These fundamental issues primarily relate to a) the types Editorial

What makes a good title?

Abstract

The chances are the first thing you when you set
out to write an article is the title. But what fac-
tors transform a mediocre title into a good title?
Firstly, it should be both informative and spe-
cific, using words or phrases likely to be used
when searching for information, for example
‘nurse education’ rather than simply ‘nurse’.
Secondly, it should be concise yet convey the
main ideas clearly; articles with short titles
reporting study findings have been found to
attract higher numbers of viewing and citations.
Thirdly, provide details of the study design to
assist the reader in making an informed choice
about the type of project your article is report-
ing. In taking these small steps when developing
your title, your title can present a more concise,
retrievable and clear articulation of your article.

Keywords: Publishers and publishing, Writing

What’s the first thing you write when you set
out to write an article? The chances are that it is a
title, to get you over the hurdle of the blank page
and having a strong ‘working title’ can help you
stay focused during the writing process.
But titles are not only about getting started and

it is important to consider the wider purpose of a
title, because choosing the right title can be crucial
on a number of levels. A well-written title can
help someone searching for an article on your
topic area to find your paper and provides a clear
statement to the reader of what to expect.
So what makes a good title? First and foremost,

the title should be informative. In her analysis of
article titles, Cynthia Whissel1 notes that while the
use of emotive or abstract language varies over
time, there has been a consistent trend towards
more concrete and definitive titles since the mid-
1980s. This trend could partly be explained by the
rise of Internet searches to locate the literature,
with authors considering the likely words or
phrases used to identify papers on their subject.
Being specific in your title can aid its retrieval so,

for example, instead of searching simply for
papers on ‘education’ or ‘libraries’, someone is
more likely to search for a particular type of edu-
cation or library, for example ‘nurse education’ or
‘health libraries’, something which can easily be
reflected in your article’s title.
Secondly, be concise. Most journals will have a

word or character limit for titles and may well use
a shortened version of the title as a heading across
all pages of the article, so conveying a shortened
yet comprehensive version of the main ideas dis-
cussed clearly and briefly is imperative. Interest-
ingly, a recent study of publication metrics also
found that articles with short titles, particularly
those describing results, are associated with higher
numbers of views and citations.2

Thirdly, where appropriate, give details of the
research design. As noted above, a key role for a
title is to be informative while being concise, and
colons can assBest Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2013) 295–306
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Best Practice & Research Clinical
Rheumatology

journal homepage: www.elsevierheal th.com/berh
10
How to perform a systematic search

Else Marie Bartels, PhD, DSc, Research Librarian DB *

The Parker Institute, Department of Rheumatology, Copenhagen University Hospital Frederiksberg and
Bispebjerg, Ndr. Fasanvej 57, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Keywords:
Bibliographic databases
Evidence-based medicine
Information literacy
Information services
Internet
Literature
* Tel.: þ45 38164168; fax: þ45 38164159.
E-mail address: [email protected]

1521-6942/$ – see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Lt
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2013.02.001
All medical practice and research must be evidence-based, as far as
this is possible. With medical knowledge constantly growing, it has
become necessary to possess a high level of information literacy to
stay competent and professional. Furthermore, as patients can now
search information on the Internet, clinicians must be able to
respond to this type of information in a professional way, when
needed. Here, the development of viable systematic search stra-
tegies for journal articles, books, book chapters and other sources,
selection of appropriate databases, search tools and selection
methods are described and illustrated with examples from rheu-
matology. The up-keep of skills over time, and the acquisition of
localised information sources, are discussed.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction

Medical information, mainly in the form of scientific papers but also as books and other types of
resources (mostly as Internet sites), is growing at a remarkable rate. One result of this is that a high
level of information literacy is required by all who wish to keep up-to-date in their field. Another part
of information literacy is to be able to trace the information patients have found on the Internet, and to
assess this in a professional way, in order to keep a good patient–doctor relationship, where the patient
has confidence in the doctor’s knowledge and skills.

Although general-purpose searching via a search engine (e.g., using Google [1]) or a search-engine-
type search inMedline via PubMed [2] (see later) may cover your information need to some degree, it is
important to be disciplined and focussed and to know the available information sources if you wish to
practise your daily work in an evidence-based way [3,4]. It is only when you wish to find “something
about a subject” that you might try your luck with a general-purpose search; and in this case you still
d. All rights reserved.

mailto:[email protected]

http://crossmark.dyndns.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.berh.2013.02.001&domain=pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15216942

http://www.elsevierhealth.com/berh

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2013.02.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2013.02.001

E.M. Bartels / Best Original Article

A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic
Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence-Based
Practice in Nursing and Health Care
Ashleigh Butler, MNurs, BNurs, RN • Helen Hall, PhD, MMid, RN, ND •
Beverley Copnell, PhD, RN

Keywords

systematic review
protocol,

qualitative,
meta synthesis,

guidelines

ABSTRACT
Background: The qualitative systematic review is a rapidly developing area of nursing research.
In order to present trustworthy, high-quality recommendations, such reviews should be based on
a review protocol to minimize bias and enhance transparency and reproducibility. Although there
are a number of resources available to guide researchers in developing a quantitative review
protocol, very few resources exist for qualitative reviews.

Aims: To guide researchers through the process of developing a qualitative systematic review
protocol, using an example review question.

Methodology: The key elements required in a systematic review protocol are discussed, with
a focus on application to qualitative reviews: Development of a research question; formulation
of key search terms and strategies; designing a multistage review process; critical appraisal
of qualitative literature; development of data extraction techniques; and data synthesis. The
paper highlights important considerations during the protocol development process, and uses a
previously developed review question as a working example.

Implications for Research: This paper will assist novice researchers in developing a qualitative
systematic review protocol. By providing a worked example of a protocol, the paper encourages
the development of review protocols, enhancing the trustworthiness and value of the completed
qualitative systematic review findings.

Linking Evidence to Action: Qualitative systematic reviews should be based on well planned,
peer reviewed protocols to enhance the trustworthiness of results and thus their usefulness in
clinical practice. Protocols should outline, in detail, the processes which will be used to undertake
the review, including key search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the methods used for
critical appraisal, data extraction and data analysis to facilitate transparency of the review process.
Additionally, journals should encourage and support the publication of review protocols, and
should require reference to a protocol prior to publication of the review results.

INTRODUCTION
The qualitative systematic review is a newly emerging area of
health care research. Qualitative reviews differ from their quan-
titative counterparts in that they aim to present a comprehen-
sive understanding of participant experiences and perceptions,
rather than assess the effectiveness of an intervention (Stern,
Jordan, & McArthur, 2014). However, their goal remains the
same: to produce high-quality recommendations for patient
care based on a scrupulous review of the best available evi-
dence at the time (Aromataris & Pearson, 2014; Risenberg &
JustiCORRESPONDENCE Open Access

What kind of systematic review should I
conduct? A proposed typology and
guidance for systematic reviewers in the
medical and health sciences
Zachary Munn* , Cindy Stern, Edoardo Aromataris, Craig Lockwood and Zoe Jordan

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews have been considered as the pillar on which evidence-based healthcare rests.
Systematic review methodology has evolved and been modified over the years to accommodate the range of
questions that may arise in the health and medical sciences. This paper explores a concept still rarely considered by
novice authors and in the literature: determining the type of systematic review to undertake based on a research
question or priority.

Results: Within the framework of the evidence-based healthcare paradigm, defining the question and type of systematic
review to conduct is a pivotal first step that will guide the rest of the process and has the potential to impact on other
aspects of the evidence-based healthcare cycle (evidence generation, transfer and implementation). It is something that
novice reviewers (and others not familiar with the range of review types available) need to take account of but frequently
overlook. Our aim is to provide a typology of review types and describe key elements that need to be addressed during
question development for each type.

Conclusions: In this paper a typology is proposed of various systematic review methodologies. The review types are
defined and situated with regard to establishing corresponding questions and inclusion criteria. The ultimate objective is
to provide clarified guidance for both novice and experienced reviewers and a unified typology with respect to review
types.

Keywords: Systematic reviews, Evidence-based healthcare, Question development

Introduction
Systematic reviews are the gold standard to search for, col-
late, critique and summarize the best available evidence re-
garding a clinical question [1, 2]. The results of systematic
reviews provide the most valid evidence base to inform the
development of trustworthy clinical guidelines (and their
recommendations) and clinical decision making [2]. They
follow a structured research process that requires rigorous
methods to ensure that the results are both reliable and
meaningful to end users. Systematic reviews are therefore
seen as the pillar of evidence-based healthcare [3–6]. How-
ever, systematic review methodology and the language used

to express that methodology, has progressed significantly
since their appearance in healthcare in the 1970’s and 80’s
[7, 8]. The diachronic nature of this evolution has caused,
and continues to cause, great confusion for both novice
and experienced researchers seeking to synthesise various
forms of evidence. Indeed, it has already been argued that
the current proliferation of review types is creating chal-
lenges for the terminology for describing such reviews [9].
These fundamental issues primarily relate to a) the types




Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.