HLST 4200 Sessions 7-12 PDF

SESSION 7: CHAPTER 5 -​ Desk Based Research: the process of gathering and researching existing information to answer a research question. Also called secondary research. This research is done via the internet so indirectly -​ Empirical R...

SESSION 7: CHAPTER 5 -​ Desk Based Research: the process of gathering and researching existing information to answer a research question. Also called secondary research. This research is done via the internet so indirectly -​ Empirical Reach: a research where you gather your own data (ex. Through interview or focus groups -​ Realist synthesis Types of Desk-Based Research: 1.​ **Literature Reviews:** ○​ Purpose: To synthesize existing research on a specific topic, identifying patterns, gaps, and relationships. ○​ **Process:** ​ Search Strategy: Develop a systematic approach to locate relevant literature, including databases, keywords, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. ​ Critical Appraisal: Evaluate the quality and relevance of the studies, considering methodologies, findings, and limitations. ​ Synthesis: Integrate findings to provide a coherent narrative or thematic analysis. 2.​ **Systematic Reviews:** ○​ Definition: A rigorous form of literature review that aims to answer a specific research question through comprehensive data collection and analysis. ○​ **Characteristics:** ​ Protocol Development: Predefine objectives, criteria, and methods to minimize bias. ​ Comprehensive Search: Include both published and unpublished studies to avoid publication bias. ​ Data Extraction and Analysis: Use standardized forms and, where applicable, statistical methods like meta-analysis. 3.​ Definition of Umbrella Reviews:​ An umbrella review is a type of research that looks at multiple existing reviews on a topic to provide a big-picture summary of all the findings. Instead of focusing on individual studies, it gathers information from different systematic reviews and meta-analyses to give a high-level overview of what is already known. Example to Help Remember the Term:​ Think of an umbrella review like planning a vacation. Instead of looking at individual hotel reviews, flight options, and sightseeing suggestions separately, you read a travel website that summarizes different review sources to give you an overall picture of the best travel choices. The website has already gathered information from various sources, making it easier for you to see the bigger picture without going through each review individually. By visualizing an umbrella covering multiple smaller reviews, you can remember that an umbrella review brings together many different summaries into one comprehensive report. 4.​ **Realist Reviews:**​ ○​ Focus: To understand the mechanisms through which interventions work (or don't) in particular contexts. ○​ **Approach:** ​ Theory-Driven: Develop and refine theories about how interventions achieve outcomes. ​ Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) Configurations: Explore how specific contexts influence the mechanisms and lead to particular outcomes.  5.​ Mixed Systematic Reviews: Combines both quantitative and qualitative studies to provide a more complete understanding on the topic. 6.​ Systematic Rapid Reviews: Definition of Systematic Rapid Reviews (in Simple Terms):​ A systematic rapid review is a type of research that quickly gathers and summarizes existing studies on a topic in a structured and organized way. It follows a systematic process, like a full systematic review, but speeds things up by simplifying certain steps—such as narrowing the search criteria or focusing on fewer sources. This type of review is useful when decisions need to be made quickly, such as in healthcare or policy-making. Example to Help Remember the Term:​ Imagine you're shopping for a new phone but don’t have much time. Instead of reading hundreds of detailed reviews, you quickly check the top 5 websites that summarize the best options based on key features you care about, like battery life and camera quality. You're still making an informed decision, but much faster than if you reviewed every single phone yourself. By thinking of a systematic rapid review like a fast but organized shopping search, you can remember that it provides reliable information quickly by focusing on the most important sources while maintaining a structured approach. Definition: A rigorous form of literature review that aims to answer a specific research question through comprehensive data collection and analysis. Characteristics: 7.​ Protocol Development: Predefine objectives, criteria, and methods to minimize bias. 8.​ Comprehensive Search: Include both published and unpublished studies to avoid publication bias. 9.​ Data Extraction and Analysis: Use standardized forms and, where applicable, statistical methods like meta-analysis. Literature Reviews: To put together existing research on a specific topic. PROCESS: a.​ To find out what’s already known about the topic b.​ To give reader a critical overview of what’s been found c.​ To integrate findings; find out what’s missing 10.​ Systematic Review: Purpose: To synthesize existing research on a specific topic, identifying patterns, gaps, and relationships. Process: Search Strategy: Develop a systematic approach to locate relevant literature, including databases, keywords, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. Critical Appraisal: Evaluate the quality and relevance of the studies, considering methodologies, findings, and limitations. Synthesis: Integrate findings to provide a coherent narrative or thematic analysis. 11.​ Meta-analyses: Quantitative integration of studies that are similar to each other. Once these studies are combined it can generate new results, new data, and new conclusions 12.​ Scoping Reviews: Type of research that explores the “likely” size and scope of the research literature. 13.​ The State of the Art Review: Ways to gather important information before writing a report or thesis. It focus on current matters. Example: an annual review PURPOSE: improving the understanding of a topic 14.​ Desk-based research: Process of gathering and researching existing information to answer a research question. This is done indirectly via the internet. Conducting a literature review can be simplified into clear steps: 1.​ Define the Scope: Decide on the specific topic or question you want to explore. This helps keep your research focused and relevant. 2.​ Search the Literature: Look for existing research related to your topic. Use academic databases and libraries to find books, articles, and papers. 3.​ Assess Quality: Evaluate the credibility of the sources you've found. Prioritize studies that are well-conducted and published in reputable journals. 4.​ Synthesize Findings: Combine the information from different sources to see the overall picture. Identify common themes, agreements, or disagreements among the studies. 5.​ Report Results: Organize your findings into a structured format, such as an essay or report, discussing what you've learned and suggesting areas for further research.​ Conducting a sytematic review can be simplified into clear steps: Steps to Conduct a Systematic Review: 1. Define the Research Question ​ Clearly state what you want to investigate using a structured format such as PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) for healthcare topics. ​ Example: Does regular exercise reduce blood pressure in adults compared to no exercise? 2. Develop a Review Protocol ​ Outline a plan that details how the review will be conducted, including search strategies, databases to use, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and how data will be analyzed. ​ The protocol helps ensure transparency and consistency. 3. Search the Literature ​ Conduct a comprehensive search using multiple databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science). ​ Use well-defined search terms and Boolean operators (e.g., AND, OR, NOT) to refine results. ​ Include gray literature (e.g., reports, conference papers) if relevant. 4. Select Relevant Studies ​ Apply inclusion and exclusion criteria to filter studies based on relevance, publication date, study design, population, and interventions. ​ Two independent reviewers usually assess studies to reduce bias. 5. Assess the Quality of Studies ​ Use standardized tools such as: ○​ Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (for randomized trials) ○​ Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (for observational studies) ○​ PRISMA Checklist (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) ​ This step ensures that only high-quality studies contribute to the review. 6. Extract Data ​ Create a data extraction form to systematically collect key details from selected studies, such as: ○​ Study design ○​ Population characteristics ○​ Intervention details ○​ Outcomes measured ​ This helps in organizing the findings for synthesis. 7. Synthesize and Analyze the Findings ​ If data allows, perform a meta-analysis (statistical pooling of results).  ​ If not, conduct a narrative synthesis, summarizing findings descriptively and comparing study results. 8. Interpret the Results ​ Discuss what the findings indicate in relation to your research question. ​ Consider limitations such as publication bias, heterogeneity of studies, and potential confounding factors. 9. Report the Findings ​ Structure the report using a recognized guideline such as PRISMA, including: ○​ Introduction (background, research question) ○​ Methods (how the review was conducted) ○​ Results (findings, tables, charts) ○​ Discussion (implications, limitations, recommendations) ​ Present results in a transparent and reproducible manner. 10. Update the Review (if necessary) ​ A systematic review should be updated periodically to include new research and keep the conclusions relevant. Example to Help Remember the Steps: Think of conducting a systematic review like organizing a big event: 1.​ Decide on the event theme (research question). 2.​ Make a detailed plan (protocol). 3.​ Search for vendors and venues (literature search). 4.​ Shortlist based on budget and style (selection criteria). 5.​ Check their reviews and credibility (quality assessment). 6.​ Gather details and prices (data extraction). 7.​ Compare options and make decisions (synthesis). 8.​ Analyze the best choice (interpretation). 9.​ Write a detailed event plan (reporting). 10.​ Keep checking for updates (reviewing periodically). How to Conduct a Realist Review (Simplified Guide) A realist review is a type of literature review that focuses on understanding how and why an intervention works (or doesn’t work) in different situations. Instead of just asking "Does it work?" like a traditional systematic review, a realist review asks deeper questions like: ​ For whom does it work? ​ In what circumstances does it work? ​ Why does it work (or not work)? Steps to Conduct a Realist Review 1. Define the Scope and Research Question ​ Identify the broad topic and refine it into a focused question using a framework like CIMO (Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcome). ​ Example: How does mental health support impact students from diverse backgrounds in university settings?  ​ The goal is to uncover how and why interventions work under specific conditions. 2. Develop a Review Protocol ​ Plan the review process by outlining: ○​ Objectives of the review ○​ Inclusion/exclusion criteria ○​ Sources of data (e.g., academic literature, reports, interviews) ○​ How data will be analyzed ​ Unlike systematic reviews, a realist review remains flexible to allow new insights to emerge. 3. Search the Literature ​ Use academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar) and gray literature (government reports, policy documents). ​ Search broadly to include different contexts and theories. ​ Look for studies that provide explanations (not just results) of how interventions work. 4. Screen and Select Studies ​ Review studies based on relevance to your question rather than rigid inclusion/exclusion criteria. ​ Select papers that offer insights into the context, mechanisms, and outcomes of the intervention. 5. Extract and Organize Data ​ Collect data based on the CIMO framework to understand: ○​ Context – What conditions influence the intervention? ○​ Intervention – What action is taken? ○​ Mechanism – What processes or behaviors make it work? ○​ Outcome – What results are observed? ​ Example: A university counseling program might work well for students with social support (context), because it provides coping skills (mechanism), leading to reduced anxiety (outcome). 6. Synthesize Findings (Develop Theories) ​ Identify patterns across studies to understand what works, for whom, and why. ​ Build explanatory models or theories that explain relationships between context, mechanisms, and outcomes. ​ Example: In low-support environments (context), online counseling interventions (intervention) may not provide the emotional connection (mechanism) needed to reduce anxiety (outcome). 7. Refine and Test Theories ​ Check if your theories hold up across different studies and contexts. ​ Adjust your explanations based on new data and stakeholder feedback. 8. Report the Findings ​ Present your findings by explaining: ○​ What mechanisms worked (or didn't) in specific contexts ○​ Practical recommendations for policymakers or practitioners ○​ Areas needing further research ​ Use clear tables or diagrams to show how the intervention works under different conditions. Example to Help Remember the Steps: Think of a realist review like solving a mystery case: 1.​ You gather clues (different studies). 2.​ You look at the context (where and when it happened). 3.​ You identify motives and actions (mechanisms behind the success or failure). 4.​ You solve the case by understanding why certain factors led to specific results. Advantages of a Realist Review: ​ Helps understand the complexities of real-world interventions. ​ Provides practical insights for policymakers and practitioners. ​ Flexible and adaptable to evolving findings. Challenges of a Realist Review: ​ Requires deep analytical thinking to uncover mechanisms. ​ Can be time-consuming due to the complexity of relationships. ​ May involve subjective interpretation of data.