Review - Staff nurses experiences of continuous professional Education program in selected hospital in sultanate of oman
Guideline to write and make solution as per requirements.
Writing should be in academic writing and APA references style from 2013 onward.
- For the purpose of clearing out any possible confusion with regard to the structure and requirement of the mini-review, please find below a summary for the same:
The number of studies to be included can't be pre-determined because it is a literature review in nature and usually the number of articles to be included left to the chance of search findings.
- It is strongly recommended to use a data extraction table. Just remember the use of data extraction table would contribute positively onto your paper so try to practice this.
- The finding and discussion sections need to be presented separately. Merging the two sections might cause some confusion to the markers, thus making it separate would help clarity.
- In the conclusion section, besides recalling the main points of the paper, also summarize the overall limitations of the articles identified and the limitations of your review.
Title
Should be clear, in acceptable length, relevant, and capitalized. Note to lowercase conjunctions words.
Abstract
a concise summary of the main question, methods, and findings and conclusions of the review should be given in 200-300 words.
Background of topic/issue/problem and research question
Rationales for undertaking the review and the precise PICO/SPICE question(s) to be answered should be described.
Methods
Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies and any quality criteria applied should be described. These should be appropriate to the question asked. The search strategy used and should include the keywords, and any limits or methodological filters used. How these terms were combined should be clearly described. Databases searched should be identified and known limitations in coverage of the search should be identified.
Findings of the search
an overall appraisal of the results of the search (e.g. number of articles identified, type of literature). Reasons for exclusion of potentially relevant studies should be clearly indicated. The critical appraisal should be relevant to nature of the articles and systematic. Main design features, study populations and findings of the studies identified for review should be given. Results of the included studies should be clearly and appropriately reported. You can use the provided ‘data extraction' table to help you with this and later summarize on the paper. Data extraction table/s can be attached as an appendix.
Findings of the review: There should be an overall appraisal of the results of the search (e.g. volume nature and quality of the literature). Reasons for exclusion of potentially relevant studies should be clearly indicated. Critical appraisal should be evident and systematic. Main design features, study populations and findings of the studies identified for review should be given. Results of the included studies should be clearly and appropriately reported.
Discussion
interpret and critically discuss the significances of the findings in light of the main topic/problem/issue and present any new understanding or insight about the topic/problem/issue.
Conclusions
The conclusions should be supported by and appropriate to the findings of the review. Limitations of both the evidence and the review itself should be clearly acknowledged and the implications of this considered.