HWSC5005 Applied Research in Practice Assignment Brief 2026 | OBU

Module code and title:

HWSC5005 Applied Research in Practice

Assignment type and word count:

Written assignment, report

(Individual)

Assessment weighting:

100%

Submission time and date:

Monday, 9^th March 2026 by 23:59

Target feedback time and date:

Monday, 13^th April 2026 by 23:59

Suggested Framework to structure the task

A Critical Appraisal Report.

Introduction

● Define an RCT and its role in evidence-based practice.

● Describe the health condition under study and critically discuss why RCTs are necessary for improving outcomes in this context, highlighting any gaps or challenges that the research seeks to address.

● Outline the assignment structure to guide the reader.

Systematic Search Process

● Detail your systematic search process using the PICO model:

● Population

● Intervention

● Comparison

● Outcome

● State the search terms and Boolean operators used.

Using the PICO Framework to guide the search e.g.

o Population: “older adults” OR “elderly”

o Intervention: “community-based intervention” OR “community programme”

o Comparison: “control group” OR “standard care”

o Outcome: “health outcomes” OR “social engagement” OR “quality of life”

● Justify inclusion based on:

● Relevance (condition, intervention, population)

● Methodology (control groups, sample size, peer-reviewed status)

● Recency (published within the last 10 years)

Justify your selection of the three RCTs, clearly explaining your rationale. Ensure that you:

● Include full citation (author, year, title, journal).

● Describe how the PICO model was used in the systematic search process, clearly stating the specific search terms and Boolean operators applied.

● Explain the reasoning behind your selection process, considering the following aspects:

o Relevance- nature of the interventions, the health condition examined, and/or the target population.

o Methodology- inclusion of peer-reviewed studies, composition of control groups, and/or participants' group size and characteristics.

o Publication, offer justification for chosen subject material with supporting of contemporary evidence

● Analyse how the chosen RCTs complement or contrast with each other in answering the research question.

Critical Appraisal of the RCTs

● Critically appraise the 3 selected RCTs using a CASP checklist (use the template provided not to be included in assignment).

Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) Checklist

● Summarise key strengths, weaknesses, and reliability of each RCT based on the CASP results. Do not repeat the whole CASP checklist – try to show that you know why things are strengths of limitations.

● Next, compare the three RCTs, highlighting their differences and focusing on their validity and practical applications.

Application of Theoretical Models

Utilising the PABCAR model (Maycock et al. 2001). To revise the model, see PABCAR Model - SiREN.

● Evaluate the implications and impact in practice for your chosen subject and the RCTs.

● Discuss the extent to which this model helps you to make a decision about changing practice in to improve your chosen area of health or social care.

Synthesis of Findings

Compare and integrate the key findings from the three RCTs to identify overall themes and implications.

● Highlight contradictions in findings and discuss possible reasons.

● Evaluate how the findings inform professional practice and intervention strategies.  Consider whether there may be barriers to implementing the intervention that you prefer.  

Conclusion

Summarise key insights from the RCTs synthesis

● Discuss the strengths and limitations of RCTs in informing policy and practice.

● Critique how the process utilised supported decision making, highlighting the ways in which the use of critical appraisal and the PABCAR model supported your decision making about your chosen area of Health or Social Care practice.   

● Highlight any limitations in research and suggest areas for future studies.

Assignment Sections 

85-100%

70-84%

60-69%

50-59%

40-49%

30-39%

0-29%

Introduction, Clarity, Structure, and Academic Writing (10/100)

Exceptionally clear, logical, and very well-structured introduction. Arguments are highly coherent and flow seamlessly.

Clear, logical, and well-structured introduction. Arguments are highly coherent and flow seamlessly.

Well-structured introduction with mostly clear arguments. Minor issues in coherence or structure.

Introduction is reasonably presented, with structure and logical flow. Offers definition of assignment, clearly states the purpose and focus of the submission. Provides a logical roadmap.

Presents a fairly clear introduction, with adequate context. Generally, states the purpose and structure. Roadmap is present but may lack detail and depth.

Introduction is present but poorly developed or lacks clarity and focus. Structure is weak, with limited logical flow between ideas. Arguments are underdeveloped or unclear. Frequent writing issues reduce clarity and coherence

Introduction is missing or severely underdeveloped. Structure is poor or incoherent, with no clear progression of ideas. Arguments are unclear or absent. Major writing issues significantly impair understanding.

Critical Appraisal of RCTs

(35/100)

Outstanding application of the CASP, critically appraising the RCT methodology, reliability, strengths and limitations. An outstanding, well-structured critique with very strong justifications.

Excellent use of CASP, critically evaluating RCT methodology, reliability, and limitations. Comprehensive, well-structured critique with strong justifications.

A very good application of CASP. Most aspects of RCT methodology, reliability, and limitations are addressed with solid critique.

A reasonable application of CASP. Some aspects of RCT evaluation and critique are emerging

Basic application of CASP. Minimal evaluation of RCT reliability and methodology. Basic critique is presented but there is some evaluation.

The CASP framework is applied in a limited or superficial manner, with only partial engagement with its criteria. Evaluation of the randomised controlled trial (RCT) is weak, lacking depth or clarity, and key aspects of study quality may be overlooked or poorly interpreted. Critical analysis is underdeveloped with little evidence of thoughtful appraisal or synthesis of findings beyond basic description.

The CASP framework is not applied or is used incorrectly. There is little to no evaluation of the quality of the randomised controlled trial, and key methodological issues are not identified or discussed. No meaningful critical analysis is evident, with the work relying on unsupported statements or description rather than evaluation.

Application of Theoretical Models (25/100)

Outstanding utilisation of PABCAR model and highly relevant to the RCT, clearly interpreted, and effectively integrated to support the analysis. Demonstrated extensive knowledge of the model and how they are utilised to evaluate theory and evidence-based practice. A very strong justification of how theories apply to the findings, impacting and shaping practice.

Excellent utilisation of PABCAR model and highly relevant to the RCT, clearly explained, and effectively integrated to support the analysis. Demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of the model and how they are utilised to evaluate theory and evidence-based practice.  Strong justification of how theories apply to the findings, impacting and shaping practice.

Relevant theories are used and mostly well explained. Good connection between theories and findings. Well developed justifications and impact to shaping practice,

Provides reasonable summary, with PADCAR model explanations are generally coherent. Good connection to findings and impact.

Basic use of theoretical models. Explanations have some connections to the findings, with brief impact evidenced. Basic justification for shaping practice. Some connection between PADCAR and the RCT

Relevant theories are referenced in a superficial way, with only partial understanding demonstrated. Explanations of theoretical models lack depth or clarity, and key concepts may be misunderstood or poorly articulated. The summary of theory and its impact is weak or partially inaccurate, with minimal connection made between theory and its relevance to the topic.

No relevant theories are applied or appropriately identified. There is no clear understanding or explanation of theoretical models, and any reference to theory is inaccurate or confused. The summary and discussion of theoretical impact are either missing or incorrect, demonstrating no meaningful engagement with theoretical frameworks.

Synthesis of Findings (30/100)

Outstanding integration and comparison of findings from multiple RCTs. Transparent synthesis with strong critical analysis and interpretation.

Excellent integration and comparison of findings from multiple RCTs. Clear, well-structured synthesis with strong critical analysis and interpretation.

Very good synthesis and comparison of RCT findings. Some effective critical analysis present.

Some good synthesis of RCT findings. Reasonable comparison and critical analysis. Interpretation is insightful.

Emerging synthesis of RCT findings. Some comparison and basic critical analysis.

There is limited synthesis of findings, with some attempt to bring information together, but connections between sources or results are weak or unclear. Findings are largely presented separately, with minimal comparison or integration, and limited effort to draw broader conclusions.

There is no meaningful synthesis of findings. Results are described in isolation with no comparison, integration, or attempt to relate them to one another. The work remains purely descriptive, demonstrating no analytical engagement with the findings.