produce a systematic and critical review of empirical studies focussed on a chosen topic area.

Assessment Specification
This dissertation requires you to complete a systematic review of literature; you will need
to produce a systematic and critical review of empirical studies focussed on a chosen topic
area.
HSM009 Dissertation: Suggested structure for your systematic review
Below you will find some general guidance on how to format your systematic review for
the dissertation.
• There will be variations in how you present your dissertation work, this will depend
on the type of review – e.g. quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods review.
• You should also refer to relevant guidance on the conduct or reporting of your type
of review to determine whether adaptations are necessary
• It would be wise to read some published systematic reviews in areas aligned to
your review to determine if there are any templates that may help you with
presenting your work.
These guidelines have been developed using the preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA statement) (Moher et al., 2009).
Title:
You should clearly state the type of review that you are doing (i.e. systematic review) and
the focus of the review. The focus of the review should be specified according to the
framework used to structure your research question e.g. PICO or PEO etc.

• PICOS is an acronym for a standard minimum set of descriptors employed in Cochrane
  reviews covering: Population; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome; Study design.
  Abstract (awarded as part of overall presentation):
  It is recommended to write this after you have completed the rest of your dissertation.
  The abstract should be structured, and should provide the following information:
• Background: provide a brief background with reference to review objectives
• Methods: refer to data sources, study eligibility, study appraisal and synthesis
  methods
  HSM009 2021-22
• Results: include a brief summary of the synthesised results
• Conclusions and implications: Include a brief conclusion with implications for
  practice and research.
  Typically abstracts are between 300 and 500 words in length i.e. usually not more than one
  A4 page .
  Each chapter below should contain a brief (2-3 sentences) introduction (at the
  beginning) and summary (at the end) and be structured using subheadings to signpost
  the reader.
  Introduction (15%):
  You should provide some broad context to the topic area, who does it impact? (Including
  some statistics would be helpful here) and why this is an important topic (some reference
  to contemporary policy is important).
  You should also include some reference to what we currently know about the topic area
  (i.e. what is the current evidence base?). You may refer to a systematic review in a closely
  aligned area and state how your review will differ.
  Overall: You should describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already
  known.
  It is important that you explicitly state the research question that your review will address
  with reference to a framework (e.g. PEO – population, exposure, outcome or PICO –
  participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes.).
  It is also important that you clearly articulate the aims and objectives of the literature
  review. Remember objectives are smaller bite size versions of the aim.
  Methods (20%):
  The purpose of this section (covering search strategy, eligibility criteria, study selection,
  data collection, critical appraisal and synthesis on the marking rubric) is to provide
  sufficient detail to the reader to enable another researcher to replicate the review
  process. This section will be tailored to the type of review (i.e. qualitative, quantitative
  and mixed methods) you are conducting.
  It is important that you also demonstrate understanding of the systematic review process
  by including some justification for your decisions. It is useful to refer to a recognised
  systematic review methodology during this chapter e.g. Cochrane or JBI or CEBM to help
  guide the process.
  You will need to describe the search strategy, including the methods used to identify
  relevant primary studies, extract relevant information, assess the quality of the identified
  studies, and synthesize the findings. This list is not intended to be exhaustive and should
  be adapted according to the type of review you are reporting.
  Your methods section will include sub-sections such as:
  HSM009 2021-22
  ▪ Eligibility criteria – Specify study characteristics (such as PICO or PEO, length of
  follow-up) and report characteristics (such as years considered, language, publication
  status) used as criteria for eligibility. You will need to give a rationale for each with
  some references.
  ▪ Information sources – Describe all information sources employed in the search (such
  as databases used with dates of coverage) and the date last searched with
  justification for decisions about the data sources and time coverage.
  ▪ Search strategy – Present your full electronic search strategy for at least one
  database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. This search can be
  included in the appendices and referred to. In the main body of the text include
  explicit reference in the concepts searched (it may be helpful to include this in a table
  format, see formative assignment guidelines and should include the use of
  truncation/wildcards, phrase searching and the use of Boolean operators).
  ▪ Study selection – State the process for selecting studies (i.e. how were the inclusion
  and exclusion criteria applied to each study).
  ▪ Data extraction process – Describe the method of data extraction from reports. What
  was included in the standardized data extraction forms?
  ▪ Quality Assessment: – Describe methods used for assessing the quality of the studies
  and how this information will be used in the data synthesis. What type of critical
  appraisal tool did you use? And what is the rationale for using the chosen tool?
  ▪ Synthesis of results – Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of
  studies (e.g. vote count procedure; meta-analysis; thematic synthesis; metaethnography). For all types of review you should provide sufficient detail to allow
  another researcher to replicate the procedure. A rationale should be provided for
  the approach you have chosen (you should not include the findings of studies in this
  section – this is about how you will manage/present the findings in the next chapter).