1 / 27

LITERATURE REVIEW

LITERATURE REVIEW. ARCHELLE JANE C. CALLEJO, PTRP,MSPH. OBJECTIVES. 1. TO DEFINE LITERATURE REVIEW 2. TO INCREASE THE STUDENTS’ AWARENESS IN THE NEED TO CRTICALLY APPRAISE RESEARCH 3. TO EXPOSE STUDENTS TO DIFFERENT APPRAISAL TOOLS

lindsay
Download Presentation

LITERATURE REVIEW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LITERATURE REVIEW ARCHELLE JANE C. CALLEJO, PTRP,MSPH

  2. OBJECTIVES • 1.TO DEFINE LITERATURE REVIEW • 2. TO INCREASE THE STUDENTS’ AWARENESS IN THE NEED TO CRTICALLY APPRAISE RESEARCH • 3. TO EXPOSE STUDENTS TO DIFFERENT APPRAISAL TOOLS • 4.TO INTRODUCE DIFFERENT FREE ACCESS WEBSITES FOR ELECTRONICALLY SEARCHING FOR JOURNALS

  3. WHAT ? HOW ? LITERATURE REVIEW WHY ?

  4. BEFORE STARTING EXACT QUESTION EXACT ANSWER • AN EVIDENCE-SEEKING QUESTION: • P - POPULATION • I – INTERVENTION • C – COMPARISON • O – OUTCOME

  5. EXAMPLE • P - STROKE PATIENTS • I - EXERCISE • C - AUGMENTED FEEDBACK • O - IMPROVE STATIC AND DYNAMIC BALANCE

  6. LITERATURE REVIEW: WHAT? • A SURVEY OF LITERATURE RELATING TO THE PROBLEM • A PROCESS OF ACQUIRING DEPTH AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE PUBLISHED INFORMATION IN A PARTICULAR FIELD OF INTEREST

  7. LITERATURE REVIEW: WHY ? • 1. TO ASCERTAIN ORIGINALITY OF THE RESEARCH • 2. TO PROVIDE IDEAS FOR SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS

  8. PLANNING FOR LITERATURE REVIEW • PRIMARY LITERATURE • MATERIALS MOST CENTRAL TO THE PARTICULAR PROBLEM BEING INVESTIGATED • SECONDARY LITERATURE • MATERIALS ALLIED OR RELATED TO THE PROBLEM OR AREA OF INTEREST BUT MORE PERIPHERAL THAN CENTRAL TO THE PROBLEM IN QUESTION • GREY LITERATURE • PUBLICATIONS WHICH ARE NOT PUBLISHED OR DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE USUAL CHANNELS AND ARE DIFFICULT TO RETRIEVE IN THE BIBLIOGRAPHIES

  9. UTILIZE A SYTEMATIC SEARCH STRATEGRY • 1. LIST AND DEFINE ANY RELEVANT MAIN WORDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE SELECTED PROBLEM • EXAMPLE: (SYNONYMS, USING MeSH) • P - STROKE OR CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT OR CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE OR HEMIPLEGIA OR HEMIPARESIS • I - • C - EXTRINSIC FEEDBACK OR BIOFEEDBACK OR COGNITIVE REHABILITATION • O -

  10. UTILIZE A SYTEMATIC SEARCH STRATEGRY • 2. SEARCH FOR YOUR TOPIC UTILIZING THE KEY WORDS THROUGH: • INDEXING PRACTICE • DATABASES • REFERENCE LIST / PEARLING ( MAKING USE OF BIBLIOGRAPHIES) • LANGUAGE • STUDY DESIGN ACCEPTED • TIME LIMIT • 3. CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF ARTICLES

  11. LITERATURE REVIEW:HOW ? A SUBJECT APPROACH IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE LIBRARIES DEFINE TERMINOLOGIES DECIDE WHICH TYPE OF INFORMATION YOU WANT TO SEARCH JOURNAL ARTICLES GREY LITERATURE BOOKS

  12. WHAT IS CRITICAL APPRAISAL? REFERS TO CHECKLIST TO PROVIDE AN OVERALL QUALITY SCORE WHY SCORE THE QUALITY OF A RESEARCH ARTICLE? YOU CAN WEED OUT POOR ARTICLES YOU CAN USE YOUR READING TIME WISELY

  13. ASSESSING PUBLISHED RESEARCH • TITLE • ABSTRACT / SUMMARY • SHORT STATEMENTS OF AIMS, METHODS,FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSMOF A RESEARCH PROJECT • INTRODUCTION • CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE CONTEXT AND GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY; • IT’S IMPORTANCE / RELEVANCE OF PROJECT; • CRITICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH LITERATURE THUS INCREASING IT’S CREDIBILITY

  14. ASSESSING PUBLISHED RESEARCH • METHOD • WHAT WAS DONE? • HOW IT WAS DONE? • THE ORDER IN WHICH IT WAS DONE? • WHY THIS PROJECT WAS CHOSEN? • WITH WHOM THE PROJECT WAS CONDUCTED?

  15. ASSESSING PUBLISHED RESEARCH • RESULTS • SUMMARY OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY FOUND IN THE PROJECT • DISCUSSION • …THE FINDINGS OF THE PROJECT VIS A VIS WITH OTHER RESEARCH WORK IN THE FIELD • CONCLUSION SHOULD REFLECT THE RESULT • THE FLAWS OF THE STUDY ARE RECOGNIZED WITH ACCOMPANY RECOMMENDATIONS • REFERENCES • FULL NAME OF AUTHOR,DATE OF WORK,ITS TITLE,WHERE IT WAS PUBLISHED

  16. OVERALL CONSIDERATION • WAS THE PROJECT A WORTHWHILE ONE, CONTRIBUTING TO THE KNOWLEDGE BASE OF PHYSICAL THERAPY? • WAS IT CLEARLY WRITTEN, SO THAT THE CONTENT WAS EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE READER? • IS THE REPORT SCIENTIFIC AND OBJECTIVE BOTH IN THE WAY IN WHICH IT WAS CONDUCTED AS WELL AS THE WA IT WAS ANALYZED AND WRITTEN UP? • HAS THE RESEARCH PROJECT ADVANCED PHYSICAL THERAPY IN ANY WAY?

  17. CHECKLIST : TO START AND THEN CONTINUE READING AN ARTICLE • IS THE ARTICLE OF INTEREST TO YOU? • TITLE / ABSTRACT • DOES IT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH AND IT’S FINDINGS? • CONCLUSION • DOES THE INFORMATION IN THE CONCLUSION MATCH THE INFORMATION IN THE ABSTRACT? • IF “NO”, STOP NOW !

  18. CHECKLIST : TO START AND THEN CONTINUE READING AN ARTICLE • WHY WAS THE STUDY DONE? • BACKGROUND / INTRODUCTION • ARE YOU CONVINCED THAT IT IS CLINICALLY IMPORTANT ( PATIENT CARE , MORBIDITY, HEALTH ECONOMICS ETC) • IS THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY CLEARLY STATED • IS THE WORK CAREFULLY REFERENCED TO OTHER RECENT WORK? • IF “NO”, STOP NOW!

  19. CHECKLIST : TO START AND THEN CONTINUE READING AN ARTICLE • CAN YOU READILY DETERMINE THE HIERARCHY LEVEL(STUDY TYPE)? • TITLE/ ABSTRACT / METHOD • IF “NO”, STOP NOW! • HOW WELL WAS THE STUDY CONDUCTED? (EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL VALIDITY) • WHO WAS STUDIED? • HOW ERE THE SUBJECTS RECRUITED? • WHAT WERE THEIR DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA? • WHAT MEASUREMENT WERE TAKEN? • CAN YOU BELIEVE (RELIABLE / VALID ETC)? • WHAT STATISTICAL TESTS WERE DONE? • IF “NO”, STOP NOW!

  20. CHECKLIST : TO START AND THEN CONTINUE READING AN ARTICLE • WHAT WERE THE STUDY’S FINDINGS? • RESULTS • Are the tables/ graphs explained adequately in the text? • Are the explanations logical? • Do the results fulfill the study purpose? • Does the presentation of the results make sense to you? • Do you understand them? • If “NO”, stop now!

  21. CHECKLIST : TO START AND THEN CONTINUE READING AN ARTICLE • WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS? • DISCUSSIONS / CONCLUSIONS / ABSTRACT • ARE THE FINDINGS WELL EXPLAINED? • DOES THE AUTHOR’S INTERPRETATION MATCH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS SECTION? • ARE THE FINDINGS IMPORTANT? • ARE THEY GENERALISABLE TO YOUR PRACTICE? • DO THEY ADD SOMETHING TO HEALTH CARE? • IF “NO”, STOP NOW !

  22. DON'T WORRY ! • PART OF THE FUN OF LEARNING ABOUT LITERATURE SEARCHING IS GETTING IT WRONG…….

  23. FREE ACCESS WEB SITES • http://www.cebp.nl/index.php?ID=94 • www.doaj.com • www.biomedcentral.com BOOLEAN METHOD: AND – BOTH TOPICS ARE INCLUDED OR - EITHER OF THE TOPICS NOT - EXCLUDED

  24. SOURCES • CURIE; CLINICAL RESEARCH, 1977 • RESEARCH FOR PHYSIOTHERAPIST,1995 • SANCHEZ ET AL; MANUAL FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH RESEARCH, 2002

  25. DAGHANG SALAMAT

  26. SEAT WORK • USING THE P.I.C.O. METHOD ALL WILL HAVE AN HOUR TO ELECTRONICALLY SEARCH FOR RELEVANT RESEARCH ARTICLES REGARDING ONE’S RESEARCH PROBLEM • MINIMUM OF FOUR RESEARCH ARTICLES ARE TO BE SENT • SEND A PDF format TO ___________@yahoo.com • & TO YOUR OWN EMAIL ADDRESS • DEADLINE: JUNE 28, 2007 AT 12 NOON

More Related