PHE7032 Research - Methods of Enquiry Assessment Information Sem1 2024-25

Assessment(s)

Category

Type

Scope

1

Coursework

Written Assignment

3000

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/issue

[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.abstract

 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. BACKGROUND / RATIONALE

Approx. 1500words

Rationale for the research topic and 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.

This module PHE7032

Sessions 5,6,10,11

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. OBJECTIVES/ SYSTEMATIC 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 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)

 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

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

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

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_vlebooks_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 (i.e JBI) studied in the module

4. Data Extraction

Data synthesis involves collating and summarising the results of included primary studies. Present a data collection table, which you need justify (and reference) in your protocol as method of extracting the results.

5. Data Synthesis

If the study fulfils the scope of the review, the results of this study need to be extracted and considered for data synthesis.

A separate section will present and justify how data synthesis will be carried out. Select, justify and support with relevant methodological references whether:

-A narrative synthesis (not a meta-analysis. As this is a Level 7 assignment) for a Systematic review of Quantitative primary research studies; you can discuss and how this will depend upon heterogeneity of the studies identified.

Or

-A thematic synthesis for a Systematic review of Qualitative primary research studies

Quantitative (Example 8)

[Community‐based] [maternal and new born educational care packages] for [improving neonatal health and survival] in [low‐and middle‐income countries]. 

You need to consider whether your synthesis would provide an estimate of overall effectiveness of an intervention; review effectiveness in different studies, populations and settings; investigate differences; answer the review question.

Or

Qualitative (Example 9)

[Awareness and understanding of] [dementia] in [South Asians]: A synthesis of qualitative evidence

Popay, J., et al  (2006) Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version, 1(1), p.b92.

Chapter 12: Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods | Cochrane Training

5. References

All references should be appended to the protocol using the Harvard system. These are not part of the word count.

Faculty guide to Referencing

1. Critically Understand and evaluate quantitative and qualitative research paradigms.

2. Compose a focused research question relevant to the public health discipline and search strategies to locate evidence and identify gaps in the evidence base

3. Critically appraise the quality of research to distinguish between studies with robust or limited methodological integrity.

4. Rigorously justify a research design and its associated data collection and data analysis strategies to address a pertinent systematic review question.

Marking Criteria

Marking Rubric

Criterion 1

0-19%

Fail

20-39%

Fail

40-49%

Fail

50-59%

60-69%

70-79%

80-100%

Does not address the assignment brief.

Addresses the Assignment Brief.

Structure, Organisation, and Communication of Ideas.

Very poor structure, organisation, and communication of ideas.

For example: 

No introduction.

Discussions and topics are not relevant or are incomplete.

No conclusion.

Poor structure, organisation, and communication of ideas.

For example:

No appropriate introduction.

Discussions and topics are incomplete, and most of the points are difficult to follow.

No appropriate conclusion.

Unsatisfactory structure, organisation, and communication of ideas.

For example:

Introduction is superficial.

Discussion and topics are complete and mostly relevant, but points are not always clear to follow.

Some paragraphs may include conclusions but do not connect to the next paragraph.

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

Good structure, organisation, and communication of ideas.

For example:

Has an introduction.

Discussions and topics are complete, relevant, and points are clear to follow.

Some paragraphs conclude, with some attempt at connections made between paragraphs.

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 the discussion presented.

Very good structure, organisation, and communication of ideas.

 for example:

Introduction connects to the points in the main body.

Discussions and topics are complete, relevant and points have some logical order.

All paragraphs conclude with some connections made between paragraphs. 

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 the discussion presented.

Excellent structure, organisation, and communication of ideas.

 For example:

Introduction provides context to the points in the main body.

Discussions and topics are complete, relevant and have a logical order.

All paragraphs conclude with connections made between all paragraphs.

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 commanding understanding of the subject matter and is fully representative of the discussion presented.

Outstanding structure, organisation, and communication of ideas.

For example:

Introduction clearly states the main argument and provides context to the points in the main body.

Discussions and topics are complete, relevant and have a logical order which aligns to the main argument.

All paragraphs flow from one to the next and have conclusions that connect to the main argument.

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 the discussion presented.