Boost your Grades with us today!
DQ1 Discuss the importance of analyzing multiple studies when gathering literature for an evidence-based project proposal.
Sample Answer for DQ1 Discuss the importance of analyzing multiple studies when gathering literature for an evidence-based project proposal. Included After Question
DQ1 Discuss the importance of analyzing multiple studies when gathering literature for an evidence-based project proposal.
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: DQ1 Discuss the importance of analyzing multiple studies when gathering literature for an evidence-based project proposal.
Title: DQ1 Discuss the importance of analyzing multiple studies when gathering literature for an evidence-based project proposal.
Literature reviews play a critical role in scholarship because science remains, first and foremost, a cumulative endeavour (vom Brocke et al., 2009). As in any academic discipline, rigorous knowledge syntheses are becoming indispensable in keeping up with an exponentially growing eHealth literature, assisting practitioners, academics, and graduate students in finding, evaluating, and synthesizing the contents of many empirical and conceptual papers. Among other methods, literature reviews are essential for: (a) identifying what has been written on a subject or topic; (b) determining the extent to which a specific research area reveals any interpretable trends or patterns; (c) aggregating empirical findings related to a narrow research question to support evidence-based practice; (d) generating new frameworks and theories; and (e) identifying topics or questions requiring more investigation (Paré, Trudel, Jaana, & Kitsiou, 2015).
Literature reviews can take two major forms. The most prevalent one is the “literature review” or “background” section within a journal paper or a chapter in a graduate thesis. This section synthesizes the extant literature and usually identifies the gaps in knowledge that the empirical study addresses (Sylvester, Tate, & Johnstone, 2013). It may also provide a theoretical foundation for the proposed study, substantiate the presence of the research problem, justify the research as one that contributes something new to the cumulated knowledge, or validate the methods and approaches for the proposed study (Hart, 1998; Levy & Ellis, 2006).
The second form of literature review, which is the focus of this chapter, constitutes an original and valuable work of research in and of itself (Paré et al., 2015). Rather than providing a base for a researcher’s own work, it creates a solid starting point for all members of the community interested in a particular area or topic (Mulrow, 1987). The so-called “review article” is a journal-length paper which has an overarching purpose to synthesize the literature in a field, without collecting or analyzing any primary data (Green, Johnson, & Adams, 2006).
When appropriately conducted, review articles represent powerful information sources for practitioners looking for state-of-the art evidence to guide their decision-making and work practices (Paré et al., 2015). Further, high-quality reviews become frequently cited pieces of work which researchers seek out as a first clear outline of the literature when undertaking empirical studies (Cooper,
1988; Rowe, 2014). Scholars who track and gauge the impact of articles have found that review papers are cited and downloaded more often than any other type of published article (Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008; Montori, Wilczynski, Morgan, Haynes, & Hedges , 2003; Patsopoulos, Analatos, & Ioannidis, 2005). The reason for their popularity may be the fact that reading the review enables one to have an overview, if not a detailed knowledge of the area in question, as well as references to the most useful primary sources (Cronin et al., 2008). Although they are not easy to conduct, the commitment to complete a review article provides a tremendous service to one’s academic community (Paré et al., 2015; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). Most, if not all, peer-reviewed journals in the fields of medical informatics publish review articles of
some type.
DQ1 Discuss the importance of analyzing multiple studies when gathering literature for an evidence-based project proposal. Grading Rubric Guidelines
Performance Category | 10 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 0 |
Scholarliness
Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic decisions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Category | 10 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 0 |
Application of Course Knowledge –
Demonstrate the ability to analyze, synthesize, and/or apply principles and concepts learned in the course lesson and outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations |
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Category | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
Interactive Dialogue
Replies to each graded thread topic posted by the course instructor, by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week, and posts a minimum of two times in each graded thread, on separate days. (5 points possible per graded thread) |
|
Summarizes what was learned from the lesson, readings, and other student posts for the week. |
|
|
|
Minus 1 Point | Minus 2 Point | Minus 3 Point | Minus 4 Point | Minus 5 Point | |
Grammar, Syntax, APA
Note: if there are only a few errors in these criteria, please note this for the student in as an area for improvement. If the student does not make the needed corrections in upcoming weeks, then points should be deducted. Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing. The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition |
|
|
|
|
|
0 points lost | -5 points lost | ||||
Total Participation Requirements
per discussion thread |
The student answers the threaded discussion question or topic on one day and posts a second response on another day. | The student does not meet the minimum requirement of two postings on two different days | |||
Early Participation Requirement
per discussion thread |
The student must provide a substantive answer to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course instructor (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. | The student does not meet the requirement of a substantive response to the stated question or topic by Wednesday at 11:59 pm MT. |