PHE7032 Research - Methods of Enquiry Assessment Information Semester 2, 2025-26 | BCU

Heading

Description

Critical Analysis -examples (suggestions but not limited to these)

First semester Modules and our session’s to draw on + reference material (but not limited to these)

TITLE

The title has to provide enough information to help the reader decide if the review protocol is going to be relevant to them.

For intervention SRs, The Cochrane Collaboration has decided on a standard format for titles which helps convey information as quickly as possible.

Intervention] for [Problem] in [Category]: A [Quantitative] [Qualitative] Systematic Review Protocol

Other than interventions, applications to public health can take various forms, such as identifying relations or qualitative explorations of/ between variables/issues

[Issue] [Outcome]

Make sure that you clarify what type of Systematic Review (Quantitative or Qualitative) you are proposing.

Quantitative-Intervention (Example 1)

[Interventions] Promoting [Child Sexual] and [Reproductive Health and Rights] in [LMICs]: A Systematic Review* Interventions Promoting Child Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in LMICs: A Systematic Review | Pediatrics | American Academy of Pediatrics (aap.org)

Or (Example 2)

[Interventions] for reducing [Risk and Promoting inclusion] and of [Street connected children and young people]

Interventions for reducing risks and promoting inclusion of street children and young people | Cochrane

Quantitative- (Example 3)

[Associations]

Role of [Post Trauma Stress Symptoms] in the development of [Chronic Musculoskeletal pain and disability] A protocol for a Systematic Review

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/12/e058386.abstra ct

Qualitative (Example 4)* [Social determination] of [Alcohol consumption] among [Indigenous peoples] in [Colombia]: a [qualitative meta-synthesis]

Social determination of alcohol consumption among Indigenous peoples in Colombia: a qualitative meta- synthesis | BMC Public Health | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Quantitative - (Example 5) [Gender differences] in the association between [unpaid labour] and [mental health] in [employed adults]: a systematic review*

Qualitative (Example 6)* [The impact of] [working in academia] on [researchers’]

[mental health and well-being]: A systematic review and [qualitative synthesis]*

Cochrane Handbook- (Higgins, et al. 2019) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Cochrane Training

SR Protocol prisma-p- checklist.pdf

strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd edition (silverchair.com)

This module PHE7032 Sessions 1,2,5,6,10,11

Ongoing Feedback on Padlet resource associated with PHE7032 Module

PHE7032 Public Health Research Topics /grouping ideas around SDGs and Theory/Practice (padlet.com)

1. BACKGROU

Rationale for the research topic and

This module PHE7032 Sessions 5,6,10,11

ND / RATIONALE

Approx. 1500words

specific research question. It is essential that your rationale is underpinned by current public health (PH) academic sources.

You need to present the background literature as a logical discussion, if necessary, using sub- headings for clarification. It should include the size of the problem (statistics), uncertainty about dealing with it, why the PH intervention might work, and what it is supposed to achieve.

You need to critically analyse and appraise the background literature in two ways, consider firstly the data/theory proposed, secondly whether the methods used to gather the data were appropriate.

You need to conclude in a way that identifies the issues which arise from the background literature and leads into, or suggests the need for the proposed Systematic Review. By the time the reader finishes your Background section they should be able to understand why you are

asking the systematic review question.

Chapter 1: Starting a review | Cochrane Training

How to frame it from a PH perspective?

CPH Reviews and Topics | Cochrane Public Health

Linking to Key modules in semester 1

-Use LBR457

Epidemiology What Who Why Where of the topic/scale scope.

You could for instance:

-Use LBR7452 module resources (Moodle and the reading list) to discuss your topic from a PH focus (not healthcare or treatment)

-Use LBR7456 module resources (Moodle and the reading list)

to support the PH emphasis and focus by including a discussion of global/structural factors/social determinants or understanding of any relevant inequalities in how the topic is experienced.

2. OBJECTIVE

S/ SYSTEMATI C REVIEW QUESTION

In this section, provide an explicit statement of the question the systematic review will address.

Getting the review question right is the most important step in doing your protocol. As well as telling others what the review is about, it will

guide how you propose to

Quantitative-Intervention- (Example 7) Systematic Review Question

[What is the effectiveness of] [therapeutic intervention] compared with [service as usual] for [street‐ connected children and young people]?*

P= street‐connected children and young people

This module PHE7032 Sessions 1,2,5,6,10,11

Chapter 2: Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address | Cochrane Training

search, select, appraise and analyse your studies. Make sure you spend time on this section.

It is recommended that you structure your question using the relevant framework (PICOD, PICO, PIO, PEO

or SPIDER; supported by a reference). Use a table to clearly display these elements. This will depend on the type of question being asked.

P = Population i.e. the people affected by the intervention/exposure

I = Intervention/exposure under scrutiny

C = Counter intervention/comparison O = Outcome(s) of interest

D = Design of the studies likely to yield the most valid data (you must choose Quantitative OR Qualitative, do not propose a mixed method systematic review)

I=Various specific therapeutic types of interventions (specify what is in the literature)

C= Shelter/drop-in service as usual O= Primary outcomes reintegration promotion of mental health harm reduction

Objectives

- To evaluate and summarise the effectiveness of interventions for street‐connected children and young people that aim to promote inclusion, reintegration, and increase literacy and numeracy.

-To highlight implications of these findings for further research and research methods to improve knowledge of interventions in relation to the primary research objective.

-To propose recommendations for public health practice

Ongoing Feedback on Padlet resource associated with PHE7032 Module

Material Reading list in Moodle site

Course: PHE7032 Research: Methods of Enquiry SEP S1 2023/4 (bcu.ac.uk)

Reference list in this MAID, as well as Books, website links, articles designated as Core, which are specific for Public Health should be included.

* Example 4 correspond to recent published SR (see references) adapted for the academic purpose of this assignment

Interventions for promoting reintegration and reducing harmful behaviour and lifestyles in street‐connected children and young people - Coren, E - 2016 | Cochrane Library

3. METHODS OF THE REVIEW

This section is the formal description of what you plan to do once you have decided on your review question.

-Higgins, et al. (2019) available, BCU library link https://librarysearch.bcu.ac.uk/permalink/44BCU_INST/u3k8pk/cdi_askewsholts_vlebook s_9781119536659

-Boland, et al. (2017)

Doing a systematic review : a student's guide - Birmingham City University (bcu.ac.uk)

-SR Protocol prisma-p-checklist.pdf

-This module PHE7032 Sessions 5,6,10,11

3.1 Search Strategy needs to be clearly described PI(C)O(D) (or the selected relevant framework) will help determine key words, Medical subject headings (MeSH), wildcards, acronyms, synonyms, transatlantic terms that will be used in your

search strategy.

Present this on a table. You will then need to describe how these will be linked with the appropriate Boolean operators (e.g. AND, OR, NOT) to develop a search strategy that will be used to search for primary studies from a variety of resources, which you need to state, such as electronic databases, journals, conference proceedings, reference lists, grey literature, research registers, researchers and manufacturers. Support these elements with relevant methodological references. Use reading list as your starting point.

3.2 Study Selection criteria and procedures

Clearly describe in your protocol the processes that will be used to decide if a primary study will be included or excluded

from the review. This will initially depend on whether it fulfils

the scope (PI(C)O(D)/chosen framework) of the review protocol.

3.2.1 For types of participants

Specify the population/setting being impacted by public health issue, health condition or problem

3.2.2 For types of interventions

If your focus is Public Health interventions such as an educational or community, particular setting, faith-based intervention etc, you need to consider exactly what was done, how often it was done, who did it, were they trained, etc.

Please be reminded that the focus in this course needs to shift away from medical care/health care interventions (this will exclude topic options such as clinical interventions about drug preparation, route of administration, dose, duration,

frequency etc).

3.2.3 For types of counter interventions

You need to decide whether you will be comparing the intervention

group with a placebo, nothing, ‘sham treatment’ or other.

3.2.4 For types of outcome measures.

There may be secondary outcomes of interest e.g. cost, quality of life, pain, comfort and adverse effects and how they too can be determined in a valid and reliable way.

You need to read considerable amount of literature around your topic from a public health perspective to help you decide on the primary outcome of interest and how that can be determined in a valid

and reliable way.

3.2.5 For types of studies

Consider the design that will best answer the question and whether you will restrict studies on the basis of language, date or publication

status.

This module PHE7032 Sessions 1,2,3,4,7,8

3.3 Study Quality Assessment Checks and Procedures

If the study fulfils the scope PI(C)O(D) (or the relevant selected framework) of the review, you need to clearly describe in your protocol the processes you will use to determine the methodological quality of the primary study.

It is best to refer to Chapter 7: Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies | Cochrane Training in order to determine the best way of assessing bias in a quantitative study.

Sessions 3,4,7,8 will introduce CASP Checklists - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (casp-

uk.net), and other tools

Criterion

0-20%

Fail

20-39%

Fail

40-49%

Fail

50-59%

60-69%

70-79%

80-100%

Structure and Organisation

Very poor structure and organisation of the assignment, which:

·  No signposting has been provided within the introduction.

·  Discussions and topics are not relevant.

·  Topics/discussions are disconnected within paragraphs and sentences.

·  Rarely addresses the assignment brief.

Poor structure and organisation of the assignment, which:

· Very limited signposting in the introduction

· Discussions and topics are often not relevant or incomplete.

· Sentences do not connect within paragraphs/slides.

· Does not fully address the assignment brief.

Unsatisfactory structure and organisation of the assignment, which:

·  Minimal detail is provided regarding signposting set out in the introduction.

·  Discussions and topics at times do not match the introduction.

·  Discussions and topics are relevant but not connected.

·  Discussions and topics at times are repeated throughout the assignment.

·  Sentences within paragraphs/slides present as bullet points of information and lack connection.

·  At times addresses the assignment brief.

Good structure and organisation of the assignment, which:

·  Aligns to the signposting set out in the introduction.

·  Discussions and topics are at times connected with some repetition.

·  Most sentences connect within most paragraph/slides.

·  Addresses the assignment brief.

Very good structure and organisation of the assignment, which:

·  Aligns to the signposting set out in the introduction.

·  Most discussions and topics are interconnected.

·  Sentences connect within most paragraph/slides.

·  Addresses the assignment brief.

Excellent structure and organisation of the assignment, which:

·  Aligns to the signposting set out in the introduction.

·  All discussions and topics are interconnected throughout much of the assignment.

·  Sentences connect within each paragraph/slide.

·  Addresses the assignment brief.

Outstanding structure and organisation of the assignment, which:

· The structure considers the topics being discussed and rationalises the best way to present this information as outlined in the introduction.

· All discussions and topics are interconnected throughout all sections of the assignment.

· All sentences connect within each paragraph/slide throughout.

· Addresses the assignment brief.

Communication of Ideas

Very poor communication of ideas, which:

·  A superficial narrative / discussion that does not demonstrate an understanding of

Poor communication of ideas, which:

· A superficial narrative / discussion that does not demonstrate an understanding of

Inadequate communication of ideas, which:

·  A narrative / discussion that does not for the majority demonstrate an adequate

understanding the

Good communication of ideas, which:

·  A convincing narrative/discussio n with communication of ideas, that demonstrates

adequate

Very good communication of ideas, which:

·  A compelling narrative/discussio n with persuasive communication of ideas, demonstrates

significant

Excellent communication of ideas, which:

·  A sophisticated narrative/discussio n with persuasive communication of ideas, demonstrates

commanding

Outstanding communication of ideas, which:

· An authoritative narrative/discussio n with persuasive communication of ideas, demonstrates

mastery of

Criterion

0-20%

Fail

20-39%

Fail

40-49%

Fail

50-59%

60-69%

70-79%

80-100%

the complexities of the discipline.

·  Very difficult to follow the points being made.

·  Lack of defined discussions.

·  Assignment title/question is not addressed.

·  Superficial conclusion which does not offer insights and/or is not representative of the points discussed.

the complexities of the discipline.

· Difficult to follow the points being made.

· Paragraph/slides are incomplete and do not conclude.

· Minimal connection is made to the assignment title/question.

· The conclusion drawn contains inaccuracies or has irrelevant information and does not represent the discussion presented.

complexities of the discipline.

·  Difficult to follow some of the points being made.

·  Paragraph/slides are at times incomplete and do not conclude.

·  Some connection is made to the assignment title/question.

·  The conclusion drawn communicates ideas that inadequately represents an understanding of the subject matter and is not always representative of the discussion presented.

understanding of the complexities of the discipline.

·  A natural flow from each of the ideas/themes/point s developed.

·  Each paragraph/slide at times, synthesises ideas and creates conclusions that connect paragraphs throughout the assignment.

·  Each paragraph / slide at times is consistent with the argument conveyed in the introduction to the piece of work.

·  Connections are made to the taught elements of the module and beyond with connections made to professional practice.

·  The conclusion drawn communicates a synthesis of ideas that adequately represents an understanding of the subject matter and is

representative of

understanding the complexities of the discipline.

·  A natural flow from each of the ideas/themes/point s developed.

·  Each paragraph/slide for the majority, synthesises ideas and creates conclusions that connect paragraphs throughout the assignment.

·  Each paragraph / slide is consistent with the argument conveyed in the introduction to the piece of work.

·  Connections are made to the taught elements of the module and beyond with connections made to professional practice.

·  The conclusion drawn communicates a synthesis of ideas that represents a significant understanding of the subject matter and is

representative of

understanding the complexities of the discipline.

·  A natural flow from each of the ideas/themes/point s developed.

·  Each paragraph/slide synthesises ideas and creates conclusions that connect paragraphs throughout the assignment.

·  Each paragraph / slide is consistent with the argument conveyed in the introduction to the piece of work.

·  Connections are made to the taught elements of the module and beyond with connections made to professional practice.

·  The conclusion drawn communicates a synthesis of ideas that represents an commanding understanding of the subject matter and is fully representative of

understanding the complexities of the discipline.

· A natural flow from each of the ideas/themes/point s developed.

· Each paragraph/slide synthesises ideas and creates conclusions that connect paragraphs throughout the assignment.

· Each paragraph / slide is consistent with the argument conveyed in the introduction to the piece of work.

· Connections are made to the taught elements of the module and beyond with connections made to professional practice.

· The conclusion drawn communicates a synthesis of ideas that represents a mastery of understanding of the subject matter and is fully representative of

Criterion

0-20%

Fail

20-39%

Fail

40-49%

Fail

50-59%

60-69%

70-79%

80-100%

the discussion presented.

the discussion presented.

the discussion presented.

the discussion presented.

Application of Knowledge and Understanding

Very poor application of knowledge and understanding, which:

·  Demonstrates complete inaccurate knowledge base, with no appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge.

·  Missing or incomplete information.

·  Demonstrates a lack of appreciation of key theories/ philosophies

Poor application of knowledge and understanding, which:

· Demonstrates inaccurate knowledge base, with no appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge.

· Demonstrates inaccuracies in understanding of key theories/ philosophies relevant to the subject field.

· Demonstrates no appreciation of key theories/ philosophies beyond that of the subject field.

Inadequate application of knowledge and understanding, which:

·  Demonstrates minimal depth of a theoretically informed knowledge base, with little appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge.

·  Demonstrates inadequate understanding of key theories/philosophi es relevant to the subject field.

·  Demonstrates a superficial appreciation of key theories/philosophi es beyond that of the subject field.

Good application of knowledge and understanding, which:

·  Demonstrates depth of a theoretically informed knowledge base, with at times appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge.

·  Demonstrates an adequate understanding of key theories and philosophies relevant to the subject field.

·  Demonstrates at times appreciation of key theories/philosophi es beyond that of the subject field.

·  (Potentially to be removed for modules where not appropriate) Demonstrates minimal accurate knowledge of methodological approaches and how these affect the way the knowledge base is

interpreted and

Very good application of knowledge and understanding, which:

·  Demonstrates a breadth and depth of a theoretically informed knowledge base, at times shows appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge.

·  Demonstrates significant understanding of key theories/ philosophies relevant to the subject field.

·  Demonstrates at times appreciation of key theories/ philosophies beyond that of the subject field.

·  (Potentially to be removed for modules where not appropriate) Demonstrates some accurate knowledge of methodological approaches and how these affect the way the

knowledge base is

Excellent application of knowledge and understanding, which:

·  Demonstrates a breadth and depth of a theoretically informed knowledge base, with some appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge.

·  Demonstrates a commanding understanding of key theories/ philosophies relevant to the subject field.

·  Demonstrates appreciation of key theories/ philosophies beyond that of the subject field.

·  (Potentially to be removed for modules where not appropriate) Demonstrates accurate knowledge of methodological approaches and how these affect the way the

knowledge base is

Outstanding application of knowledge and understanding, which:

· Demonstrates extensive breadth and depth of a theoretically informed knowledge base, with a full appreciation of the provisional nature of knowledge.

· Demonstrates mastery of understanding key theories/ philosophies relevant to the subject field.

· Demonstrates significant appreciation of key theories/ philosophies beyond that of the subject field.

· (Potentially to be removed for modules where not appropriate) Demonstrates accurate knowledge of methodological approaches and

how these affect

Criterion

0-20%

Fail

20-39%

Fail

40-49%

Fail

50-59%

60-69%

70-79%

80-100%

applied within the context of the assignment task.

interpreted and applied within the context of the assignment task.

interpreted and applied within the context of the assignment task.

the way the knowledge base is interpreted and applied within the context of the assignment task.

Application of Critical Thinking

Very Poor application of critical thinking, which:

·  Lacks any application of critical thinking.

·  Information taken from source(s) is very limited and provided without any interpretation or evaluation.

·  The literature utilised is not interpreted, analysed, and evaluated to develop arguments that have an application of interpretation and evaluation.

·  No attempt to draw conclusions.

Poor application of critical thinking, which:

· Lacks application of critical thinking for most of the piece.

· Information taken from source(s) is limited and provided without interpretation or evaluation.

· The literature utilised is not interpreted, analysed, and evaluated to develop arguments that have an application of interpretation and evaluation.

· Minimal attempt to draw conclusions.

Inadequate application of critical thinking, which:

·  Information taken from source(s) at points within the piece do not have adequate application of interpretation and evaluation.

·  The literature utilised is not always interpreted, analysed, and evaluated to develop arguments that have an application of interpretation and evaluation.

·  Viewpoints of authors are not always interconnected and explored against factors discussed, with appropriate conclusions drawn.

Good application of critical thinking, which:

·  Uses ideas with abstraction.

·  At times develops critical responses to existing theoretical discourses, methodologies, or practices.

·  The literature utilised is interpreted, analysed, and evaluated to develop non- persuasive arguments.

·  Viewpoints of authors are interconnected and explored against factors discussed, with appropriate conclusions drawn, that allow for the creation of knowledge.

Very good application of critical thinking, which:

·  Uses ideas with abstraction.

·  At times develops

critical responses to existing theoretical discourses, methodologies or practices suggests new concepts or approaches.

·  The literature utilised is interpreted, analysed, and evaluated to develop persuasive, arguments.

·  Viewpoints of authors are interconnected and explored against factors discussed, with appropriate conclusions drawn, that allow for the creation of knowledge.

Excellent application of critical thinking, which:

·  Uses ideas at a high level of abstraction.

·  Develops critical responses with confidence to existing theoretical discourses, methodologies, or practices and at points suggests new concepts or approaches.

·  The literature utilised is interpreted, analysed, and evaluated with authority to develop persuasive, arguments.

·  Viewpoints of authors are interconnected and explored against factors discussed, with robust appropriate conclusions drawn,

that allow for the

Outstanding application of critical thinking, which:

· Uses ideas at a high level of abstraction.

· Develops critical responses with authority to existing theoretical discourses, methodologies or practices and suggests new concepts or approaches.

· The literature utilised is interpreted, analysed, and evaluated with agency to develop persuasive, authoritative arguments.

· Viewpoints of authors are interconnected and interrogated against factors discussed, with significant appropriate

conclusions drawn,

Criterion

0-20%

Fail

20-39%

Fail

40-49%

Fail

50-59%

60-69%

70-79%

80-100%

creation of new knowledge and at times the students authentic voice to be heard/read

that allow for the creation of new knowledge and the students authentic voice to be heard/read.

Use of Sources to Support Work

Very Poor use of sources to support work, which:

•  No key authors presented in the module are referred to.

·  Use of inappropriate sources that lacks academic authority, validity, or authenticity.

•  Sources of information are all from websites only.

•  Citations and reference lists are inaccurate, and incomplete.

•  Most sources are missing from the reference list.

·  Most sources do not have an in-text citation.

Poor use of sources to support work, which:

· No key authors presented in the module are referred to.

· Use of inappropriate sources that lacks academic authority, validity, or authenticity.

· Sources of information are all from websites only.

· Citations and reference lists are inaccurate, or incomplete.

· Many sources are missing from the reference list.

· Many sources do not have an in-text citation.

Inadequate use of sources to support work, which:

·  Few key authors/theories presented in the module are only referred to.

·  Minimal use of inappropriate sources that lacks academic authority, validity, or authenticity.

·  Reliant on references used within session PowerPoint. Little variety in sources used.

·  In-text citations and reference lists have a few inaccuracies.

·  Some sources are missing from the reference list.

·  Some sources do not have an in-text citation.

Good use of sources to support work, which:

·  (Potentially to be removed for modules where not appropriate) Demonstrates independent, systematic research skills, with convincing critical thinking applied to the searching and use of information.

·  Use of some key authors/theories to support work.

·  Engagement with module reading list.

·  Some wider reading is evident.

·  Little variety in sources used.

·  In-text citations and reference lists are mostly accurate.

Very good use of sources to support work, which:

·  (Potentially to be removed for modules where not appropriate) Demonstrates independent, systematic research skills, with compelling critical thinking applied to the searching and use of information.

·  Use of key authors/theories used to develop and construct discussion.

·  Engaged with module reading lists.

·  Wider reading is evident.

·  Variety of sources used.

·  In-text citations and reference lists are mostly accurate, some formatting errors.

Excellent use of sources to support work, which:

·  (Potentially to be removed for modules where not appropriate) Demonstrates extensive independent, systematic research skills, with sophisticated critical thinking applied to the searching and use of information.

·  Use of key authors/theories used to develop and construct academic discussion.

·  Engaged with module reading lists.

·  Breadth and Depth of reading from credible and authoritative sources demonstrated.

· Variety of sources

used.

Outstanding use of sources to support work, which:

· (Potentially to be removed for modules where not appropriate) Demonstrates extensive independent, systematic research skills, with authoritative critical thinking applied to the searching and use of information.

· Extensive list of sources used.

· Use of key authors/theories used to support, develop, and construct academic discussion.

· Engaged with module reading lists.

· Breadth and Depth of reading from credible and authoritative sources demonstrated.

Conditions of Progression

In order to achieve a pass mark for the module an overall grade of 50% must be achieved and all learning outcomes evidenced. In addition to a

first attempt, there will be a second (final) attempt (all dates as above).

Late or Non-Submission/ Attendance

Assessments must be submitted in the format specified in the assessment task, by the deadline and to the submission point published on Moodle. Failure to submit by the published deadline will result in penalties which are set out in Section 6 of the Academic Regulations, available at:

late-submission-of-assessment-policy-version-10-approved-june-2022- 133082470192470694.pdf (windows.net)

Please be aware that the penalties are different for re-submissions and ‘in-year retrievals’.

Word Count

The word count for this module assessment is shown under the assessment task. A +10% margin of tolerance is applied, beyond which nothing further will be marked. Marks cannot be awarded for any learning outcomes addressed outside the word count.

The word count refers to everything in the main body of the text (including headings, tables, citations, quotes, lists etc.). Everything before (i.e. abstract, acknowledgements, contents, executive summaries etc.) and after the main text (i.e. references, appendices) is not included in the

word count limit.

Academic Integrity Guidance

Academic integrity is the attitude of approaching your academic work honestly, by completing your own original work, attributing, and acknowledging your sources when necessary. Understanding good academic practice in written and oral work is a key element of academic integrity. It is a positive aspect of joining an academic community, showing familiarity with, and acknowledging sources of evidence. The skills you require at higher education may differ from those learned elsewhere such as school or college.

You will be required to follow specific academic conventions which include acknowledging the work of others through appropriate referencing and citation as explicitly as possible. If you include ideas or quotations which have not been appropriately acknowledged, this may

be seen as plagiarism which is a form of academic misconduct. If you