Do the following exercise as a way to learn the process of research review. The purpose of this exercise is to conduct an integrative research review on a health services research topic of interest to you. Your review should follow the five-step process delineated in this chapter. It is possible that the class may be divided into groups, with each member responsible for one step of the process.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

• First, conduct a preliminary review to identify the topic to be reviewed.
• Second, prepare a coding sheet based on the preliminary review, pilot-test the coding sheet using additional studies, and then revise the coding sheet.
• Third, ascertain the key terms used in your search. You may want to consult Index Medicus or other index publications for verification. Identify a computer-based abstracting service available in your library (e.g., MEDLINE) and conduct the search using the MeSH terms that coordinate best with your key terms. You may want to limit your initial search to a few years. Perform a parallel manual search and compare the differences between the two approaches.
• Fourth, record relevant study information on the coding sheets. If feasible, have different coders code the same studies and compare the results. If there are too many differences between the coders, you may want to revise the coding sheet or design a code book that accompanies the coding sheet. Then recode the articles.
• Fifth, based on the information abstracted on the coding sheets, prepare a summary table of the major variables of interest. If applicable, conduct an effect size analysis using the formulas and example from Table 4.2 as a reference. Make qualitative assessments of the studies being reviewed, focusing particularly on the uniqueness of study settings, interventions, and sample characteristics.
• Finally, prepare a formal report of your review using the following sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Consult the relevant sections for contents to be included in the review.
Answers will vary, but should follow the five-step process delineated in this chapter. Responses should include:
• Evidence that a preliminary review was conducted to identify the topic to be reviewed
• A coding sheet based on the preliminary review, along with evidence that it was pilot-tested with additional studies and revised as necessary
• A list of relevant key terms and evidence that a search was performed on a computer-based abstracting service such as MEDLINE using the selected terms; evidence that a parallel manual search was performed; and a comparison of the differences between the two approaches
• Relevant study information on the coding sheet, ideally with different coders having coded the same studies and compared their results
• A summary table of the major variables of interest, evidence that an effect size analysis was performed (if applicable), and qualitative assessments of the studies reviewed, with a focus on the uniqueness of study settings, interventions, and sample characteristics
• A formal report of the review using the following sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion