Topic: “How does general anaesthetic affect morbidity and mortality in the elderly population undergoing major surgery”
Paper details:
Protocol/methodology section – send to supervisor by Wednesday 3rd November
Formative task 4 – 500 words of literature review section – send to supervisor by 18th November.
Introduction (rationale for proposed study) (around 500 words)
In this section you will need to provide the reader with the context to your research including the reason why you think the research should be undertaken. These reasons are likely to be work-related, but you will also need to place the research problem within a wider socio-political context.
Some discussion of how you envisage your research being used in terms of developing policy and practice within your area of work should also be included in this section.
For example, if you were proposing to carry out research on drug abusers you may wish to use the results to develop more effective treatment programs.
Carefully consider some of the following question:
What is the context of your research question/problem (background)?
What have others said about your research question/problem? This section does not include your literature review, but you may find it useful to refer to one or two sources which have helped you identify your research question.
Where, when and who are you studying (your research setting, timeframe and population)?
How will your research help improve the practice?
State clearly the aim (general statement of purpose) and objectives (specific issues to be addressed) of the proposed study.
State clearly the research question.
Although you will be anxious to complete your assignment take some time to think carefully (and refine) your research question. This is a very important part of the research process.
Literature Review (around 1000 words)
Reviewing and evaluating research literature is central to the research process and in this section you will be discussing related research articles and relevant theoretical or policy perspectives that are most relevant to your research question. A good literature review is far more than a critical appraisal of a series of research studies, it should create a structure in which you legitimise carrying out your proposed study. You should consider some of the following questions in reviewing relevant literature:
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the literature you have reviewed?
Note:
This is the core of your critical appraisal, which is one of the main marking criteria!
What are the similarities and differences in the literature?
Are there any inconsistencies in the literature?
Are there any gaps in the literature, which your research would be addressing?
Have you identified the interrelationships between previous literature and your proposed study?
Remember that in this section you need to convince the reader that your research is worth doing. Your review will also need to be coherent so think carefully about how you wish to organise your discussion/critique of the relevant literature as well as developing your rationale for carrying out the study.
Protocol and Methodology Research (around 1000 words in total)
In this section you must carefully consider the different research approaches. You must show that you have an understanding of the overall research approaches. Your choice and defense of a particular methodology will be relevant to your research question, rather than personal choice. In the context of an SR you will need to determine what type of research designs will best address your topic.
A research protocol for a systematic review is a strategic plan which ensures that the evidence obtained enables you to answer the research question as accurately as possible and would allow another researcher to replicate the review. It is therefore important for the search process to be explicit and unequivocal. In the research protocol the search strategy, quality appraisal, data collection methods, data synthesis are outlined and justified.
Your review protocol should include the following
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Describe and justify the type of studies which you would include, eg qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, surveys etc.
In this section, please justify the inclusion and exclusion criteria you will apply to the SR question (e.g. population, intervention, study design, outcomes etc.).
You must consider hierarchy of evidence e.g. primary vs secondary data.
Search terms: provide a list of search terms. These need to be identified and justified in relation to the research question, and develop from PICO/PEO framework.
The list of search terms/keywords should be developed drawing on synonyms and related terms.
Each concept identified within the research question should be included in this process.
Databases:
You should detail and justify your electronic database search, including which databases (Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, etc).
You should also detail which journals you intend to hand search and if you are going to screen review articles and other bibliographies.
Study selection: Here you would describe how you intend to handle all the studies that you identify and how you make a final selection for the review. This is very much linked to the inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Quality assessment: evaluation the research articles. This section requires you to discuss data collection and data analysis in terms validity or trustworthiness and its relevance to ensuring good quality data.
You should provide details of an appropriate tool for this purpose with a justification for your decision, for example CASP and PRISMA. CASP and PRISMA tools should be included as an appendix, but at this stage do not need to be completed
In this section (Quality Assessment) you should also discuss briefly Ethical Appraisal.
In this section you should reflect upon what issues you would need to appraise in studies which are part of your review. Which ethical principles do you need to consider in relation to the appraisal of the studies for inclusion in the SR. In addition, you need to consider what steps you will undertake to ensure your SR is ethically sound.
Data extraction: Here you should describe and justify what data you will extract (e.g. methods, sample, intervention, etc.) and what type of tool you will use to guide the process. An example of the data extraction tool should be included as an appendix – this is presented as a table.
Data analysis: Here you should describe how you will handle the data. What you do with the data may very much depend on what you will be able to extract from the individual papers. You need to consider what type of data is most likely to be found (quantitative or qualitative or both) and the proposed data synthesis and presentation strategy (e.g. meta-analysis etc.).
Ethical Considerations (500 words)
In this section you should discuss briefly:
History of research ethics
Important research ethics documents such as the Declaration of Helsinki, UK Research Ethics Framework etc.
Ethical principles – we will cover these in a taught session
Reference list
The Harvard Referencing System you have used in previous Anglia Ruskin University assignments should be used. Please see the University Library website for Harvard System of referencing guide at: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/Introduction (rationale for proposed study) (around 500 words)
In this section you will need to provide the reader with the context to your research including the reason why you think the research should be undertaken. These reasons are likely to be work-related, but you will also need to place the research problem within a wider socio-political context. Some discussion of how you envisage your research being used in terms of developing policy and practice within your area of work should also be included in this section. For example, if you were proposing to carry out research on drug abusers you may wish to use the results to develop more effective treatment programs.
Carefully consider some of the following question:
What is the context of your research question/problem (background)?
What have others said about your research question/problem?
This section does not include your literature review, but you may find it useful to refer to one or two sources which have helped you identify your research question.
Where, when and who are you studying (your research setting, timeframe and population)?
How will your research help improve the practice?
State clearly the aim (general statement of purpose) and objectives (specific issues to be addressed) of the proposed study.
State clearly the research question.
Although you will be anxious to complete your assignment take some time to think carefully (and refine) your research question. This is a very important part of the research process.
Literature Review (around 1000 words)
Reviewing and evaluating research literature is central to the research process and in this section you will be discussing related research articles and relevant theoretical or policy perspectives that are most relevant to your research question.
A good literature review is far more than a critical appraisal of a series of research studies, it should create a structure in which you legitimise carrying out your proposed study.
Consider some of the following questions in reviewing relevant literature:
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the literature you have reviewed? Note:
this is the core of your critical appraisal, which is one of the main marking criteria!
What are the similarities and differences in the literature?
Are there any inconsistencies in the literature?
Are there any gaps in the literature, which your research would be addressing?
Have you identified the interrelationships between previous literature and your proposed study?
Protocol and Methodology Research (around 1000 words in total)
In this section you must carefully consider the different research approaches. You must show that you have an understanding of the overall research approaches. Your choice and defense of a particular methodology will be relevant to your research question, rather than personal choice. In the context of an SR you will need to determine what type of research designs will best address your topic.
A research protocol for a systematic review is a strategic plan which ensures that the evidence obtained enables you to answer the research question as accurately as possible and would allow another researcher to replicate the review. It is therefore important for the search process to be explicit and unequivocal. In the research protocol the search strategy, quality appraisal, data collection methods, data synthesis are outlined and justified.
Your review protocol should include the following:
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Describe and justify the type of studies which you would include, eg qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, surveys etc.
In this section,justify the inclusion and exclusion criteria you will apply to the SR question.
You must consider hierarchy of evidence e.g. primary vs secondary data.
Search terms: provide a list of search terms. These need to be identified and justified in relation to the research question, and develop from PICO/PEO framework.
The list of search terms/keywords should be developed drawing on synonyms and related terms. Each concept identified within the research question should be included in this process.
Databases: You should detail and justify your electronic database search, including which databases (Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, etc). You should also detail which journals you intend to hand search and if you are going to screen review articles and other bibliographies.
Study selection: Here you would describe how you intend to handle all the studies that you identify and how you make a final selection for the review.
You should provide details of an appropriate tool for this purpose with a justification for your decision, for example CASP and PRISMA. CASP and PRISMA tools should be included as an appendix, but at this stage do not need to be completed
In this section (Quality Assessment) you should also discuss briefly Ethical Appraisal. In this section you should reflect upon what issues you would need to appraise in studies which are part of your review.
Which ethical principles do you need to consider in relation to the appraisal of the studies for inclusion in the SR. In addition, consider what steps you will undertake to ensure your SR is ethically sound.
Data extraction: Here you should describe and justify what data you will extract (e.g. methods, sample, intervention, etc.) and what type of tool you will use to guide the process.
An example of the data extraction tool should be included as an appendix – this is presented as a table.
Data analysis: Here you should describe how you will handle the data. What you do with the data may very much depend on what you will be able to extract from the individual papers. You need to consider what type of data is most likely to be found (quantitative or qualitative or both) and the proposed data synthesis and presentation strategy (e.g. meta-analysis etc.).
Ethical Considerations (500 words)
In this section you should discuss briefly:
History of research ethics
Important research ethics documents such as the Declaration of Helsinki, UK Research Ethics Framework etc.
Ethical principles – we will cover these in a taught session
Reference list
The Harvard Referencing System you have used in previous Anglia Ruskin University assignments should be used.
See the University Library website for Harvard System of referencing guide at: http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/referencing.htm
