PICOT Question Paper and Literature Evaluation Table
Assessment Description
While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone project change proposal, the literature review enables students to map out and move into the active planning and development stages of the project.
A literature review analyzes how current research supports the PICOT, as well as identifies what is known and what is not known in the evidence. Students will use the information from the earlier PICOT Question Paper and Literature Evaluation Table assignments to develop a review (750-1,000 words) that includes the following sections:
1. Title page
2. Introduction section
3. A comparison of research questions
4. A comparison of sample populations
5. A comparison of the limitations of the study
6. A conclusion section, incorporating recommendations for further research
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
BUY A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
RUBRICS:
An introduction is present, and it relates to the body of the paper. Information presented in the introduction is intriguing and encourages the reader to continue reading.
A reflective and insightful comparison of research questions is presented
A reflective and insightful comparison of sample populations is presented.
A reflective and insightful comparison of the limitations of the study is presented.
A conclusion and recommendations for further research are reflective and insightful.
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.
No errors in formatting or documentation are present.
Literature Review
The PICOT question and analysis is supported by current research on issues revolving around school-going children’s health education in particular as regards covid-19. This is in a bid to alleviate the Covid-19 spread among this pediatric population. The answers provided in the PICOT question are based on findings from a handful of secondary sources whose analysis is done in this section.
Research Questions Used
A multitude of research has been done on the impacts of the novel Covid-19 and some of these are centered on the study of children and the effectiveness of measures taken to protect them from the impacts of the virus. These studies were based on varying research questions. The article by Andrejko, Head, Lewnard and Remais (2022) sought to determine what the effects of closures on school-going children and their families were on Covid-19 spread. In a different study, Baxter et al. (2021) based their analysis on the question of the number of children affected by Covid-19 and the impacts this had on them. In each of these studies, the idea was to determine the impact that the coronavirus had on children in comparison to other members of society. The objective of doing this according to these researchers was to determine whether measures of alleviation of the plight of these children should be different from the other members of the population considering that they were at a higher risk due to factors such as intense contact with members of the society, their relative ignorance and low immunity rendered them at a disadvantage. Other researches done were based on research questions such as; what the rate of transmission in schools was, what are the nursing care guidelines for supporting nurses in managing Covid-19 patients, and the rate of covid-19 prevalence among children.
BUY A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Sample Populations Studied
The different research studies conducted were based on different sample populations. Andrejko, Head, Lewnard and Remais (2022) sampled 1967 households that represented 2,674 children. Baxter et al. (2021) on their part focused on Australian adolescents aged at least 12 years on more. In a study by Xu, Stjernswärd and Glasdam (2021) who researched the psychosocial experiences of frontline nurses picked their sample from reputable databases such as CINAHL and PubMed. Efendi et al. (2022) also selected their sample for the research study from the same databases, CINAHL and PubMed, plus others like ProQuest and Science direct. Primary and secondary data are used in research studies depending on the objectives, available resources, and nature of the research. Eight research articles were selected for this literature review and it is evident that a majority of the qualitative and qualitative researches done relied on secondary research with sample data collected from secondary sources from databases such as PubMed, WHO, ProQuest, and Science Direct.
Limitations of the Study
From the eight articles focused on this study, it is evident that different researchers used different sample sizes. In both the studies that used qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches, a debatable limitation was in the sample size used. While some based their research on 1000 or 2000 participants such as Caini et al, (2022) and Andrejko et al. (2022), others used just a handful of secondary articles to base their analysis. In the latter case are studies such as Mondal et al. (2021) and Xu, H., Stjernswärd, S., & Glasdam (2021). A second limitation that emerged is time and constrain a majority of these research studies were conducted within a year of the emergence of covid 19. In order to fully comprehend issues through research, a wider timeframe is essential to factor in time and period differences. With time, perhaps, these studies would have captured other aspects such as the exposure period for the intervention to safeguard against covid-19.
Lastly and perhaps the most important limitation in the studies is the lack of previous research specific to the disease. Although the novel covid-19 has predecessor coronaviruses such as MARS and SARS, the rate of infection of the recent virus was very high and the application of measures taken with the latter two was insufficient. When the virus emerged and spread very fast in all parts of the world, scientists did not have sufficient time to understand it, develop a cure for it, and curb its spread. The same is true with the research work that was done during the past two years of the emergence of the virus where a lack of precedence made the work of researchers even more taxing.
BUY A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Conclusion
Suffice to say, the literature amassed in the last two years since the covid-19 pandemic emerged has created important insights in the fields of medicine and other sciences. Improved ways of managing covid-19 have been developed and the plight of different populations including children and nurses who are at a higher risk of infection improved. Going into the future better-informed research studies will be conducted now that the body of literature specific to coronavirus has widened in the past few years. Perhaps, the limitations that emerged from the analysed research studies came about because fast answers were needed to understand the new strain of corona virus and maybe researchers felt pressured to conduct expeditious researches. Or maybe the fact that there lacked sufficient precedent researches on issues specific to covid-19 had a material part to play. All in all, the findings of the analysed researches and the current study are important as they have set the basis for related research that will be crucial in offering direction in the management of covid-19 and other similar communicable diseases.
References
Andrejko, K. L., Head, J. R., Lewnard, J. A., & Remais, J. V. (2022). Longitudinal social contacts among school-aged children during the COVID-19 pandemic: the Bay Area Contacts among Kids (BACK) study. BMC infectious diseases, 22(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-022-07218-4
Baxter, N., Crabb, B., Cole, K., Davidson, A., Pulver, L. J., Flanagan, J., & Veness, B. (2021). Protecting children from COVID-19 and making schools and childcare safer.
Caini, S., Martinoli, C., La Vecchia, C., Raimondi, S., Bellerba, F., D’Ecclesiis, O., … & Gandini, S. (2022). SARS-CoV-2 Circulation in the School Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5384. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095384
Cascella, M., Rajnik, M., Aleem, A., Dulebohn, S. C., & Di Napoli, R. (2022). Features, evaluation, and treatment of coronavirus (COVID-19). Statpearls [internet]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554776/
Efendi, D., Hasan, F., Natalia, R., Utami, A. R., Sonko, I., Asmarini, T. A., Yuningsih, R., Wanda, D., & Sari, D. (2022). Nursing care recommendation for pediatric COVID-19 patients in the hospital setting: A brief scoping review. PloS one, 17(2), e0263267. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263267
Mondal, R., Ganguly, U., Deb, S., Shome, G., Pramanik, S., Bandyopadhyay, D., & Lahiri, D. (2021). Meningoencephalitis associated with COVID-19: a systematic review. Journal of neurovirology, 27(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13365-020-00923-3
Xu, H., Stjernswärd, S., & Glasdam, S. (2021). Psychosocial experiences of frontline nurses working in hospital-based settings during the COVID-19 pandemic – A qualitative systematic review. International journal of nursing studies advances, 3, 100037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2021.100037
Xue, F. X., & Shen, K. L. (2021). COVID-19 in children and the importance of COVID-19 vaccination. World Journal of Pediatrics, 17(5), 462-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12519-021-00466-5