Findings: 2,000 words
This section covers the presentation of the main evidence from your review and a summary of its quality. It is the most difficult to structure and there will be a number of possibilities open to you in terms of how you deal with this task. The weakest approach will be to simply list each piece of literature reviewed in turn. A stronger approach that gives better evidence of ability to synthesise material is to use a thematic approach to the structure: for example by intervention, or outcome, or research design, to name but a few possibilities.
The group approach to supervision is particularly helpful here and your peers will be able to give you feedback on whether the particular approach you have taken to presenting your findings makes sense.
Firstly you should report the results of your literature search. As outlined in the methods section above you are recommended to use a flow diagram to depict the logical flow of information and your decision making through the different phases of your search and review. The Prisma flow diagram may be reported in either the methods section or the findings section as it is relevant to both. Use your own judgement to decide where it is most appropriately located for your individual project.
Secondly you should report on your critique of the papers you have included. The critique should be a balanced discussion and evaluation of the strengths, weakness and notable features of the text. Remember to base your discussion on specific criteria. Good reviews also include other sources to support your evaluation (remember to reference).
6) Discussion: 500 words
This should: outline the implications of the review both for your profession and within a multiprofessional context (ie you should identify the impact your research has on other professional groups (these need not be limited to the groups within the School of Health and Life Sciences e.g police; speech and language therapist, educational psychologists; highlight the methodological limitations of the review (are there any papers you could not get hold of because of difficulty accessing the journal or are they in another language); identify any gaps in the literature and make recommendations for practice and further research.
7) Conclusion: 200 words
This should provide two or three statements summarising your key findings. There should be a statement of what the review has added (how it contributes to practice).
This format is now common in many journals so you should not have too much difficulty in finding a model to follow.
8) References:
Link to library website & RefWorks Please note that users of RefWorks should choose the Harvard British Standard 2010 output style; this is consistent with the library’s guide.
9) Appendices:
This section should not be used for figures and tables that you have generated to present your review and referred to in the text – these should be included at an appropriate point within the main body of the text. However, you may want to include additional evidence that is salient to your review or provides a context e.g. client/patient information guidance; an illustration of a theoretical model; equipment specifications etc.
Client
