Learning out come
1. Initiate, plan and design an investigation into an academic area of professional practice (public health)
2. Conduct an academic study considering its theoretical underpinning and offer insight into an area of professional practice (public health)
3. Demonstrate the ability to analyse, synthesise and evaluate findings appropriate to the study undertaken (public health)
4. Critically reflect on the processes undertaken as part of the study and offer creative solutions for future studies (public health)
Dissertation Structure and Mark Allocation
The aim of providing a structure for the content of the Dissertation is to support the students in understanding the requirements of each section and allocation of the marks.
1. Incorporation of Cover Sheet.
2. Title
3. Abstract (250 words maximum. This which does not count towards the overall dissertation word count).
This section should include the following subheadings:
Aim
Background
Methodology
Results
Conclusion
4. Contents list, figures and tables and separate abbreviation list.
/ 5
5. Introduction – Context (1500-word count) As a minimum, this section should include:
Rationale for the research topic and specific research question. It is essential that your rationale is underpinned by current public health academic sources
Research Question – what exactly is the research question that your systematic review is addressing?
Justify the relevance of your chosen subject to the wider public health field of study.
Justification for using a systematic review of the literature, and why it is the preferred research method?
Aim and objectives of your research
Clear signposting so the reader knows what to expect from your systematic review.
/ 10
6. Literature review (3000-word count) as a minimum, this section should include:
Justify in research terms why is it essential to embark on a systematic review for the given topic
Present a critical analysis of the current debate on your chosen topic including primary and secondary sources
Identify any gaps in the literature that your systematic review will address
/ 15
7. Methodology (3000-word count) as a minimum, this section should include:
A clear search strategy should be provided explaining the process that you followed for searching for literature including
Which databases you used
Which search terms and key words were used
Outline other useful sources – hand searches, websites, other references
Use PICO PEO or SPIDER
Present the inclusion and exclusion criteria in a table – e.g. you could limit your study to a specific research designs (RCT, cohort study, cross sectional, qualitative etc), written in English language, range of year.
Rationale (explain why these limits and criteria were established)
Use a data extraction table to extract the relevant information for the selected studies, using the following headings for the table:
characteristics of participants,
study characteristics (e.g., duration of study, study design, study population, settings and countries, study/intervention(s) used, theories/models used to underpin the studies, and primary outcome assessed, and the measures used), and
methodological quality assessment.
Use a validated quality assessment tool to assess the quality of the papers that you have selected, include these in your appendices.
/ 30
8. Results (3000-word count) as a minimum, this section should include:
A Prisma flow diagram showing how the process you followed to determine the studies to be included in the systematic review
Present the results using the headings of the data extraction table and the quality assessment table such as
Quantitative
Qualitative
Author/year
Study design
Study aims/objectives
Study population/settings/country
Intervention duration
Description of interventions/theories or models used
Primary outcome /measures
Main findings
Author/year
Study design
Sample
Data collection
Outcome
Describe, display, synthesise and interpret the key findings.
/ 15
9. Discussion (3000-word count) as a minimum, this section should include:
Critically discuss the key findings from your systematic review
Critically discuss your findings within the context of current academic literature
Present any limitations you encountered while carrying out the systematic review.
Provide recommendations
Identify opportunities for future research or improvement of practice.
Present additional implications of the research for public health practice
/ 15
10. Conclusions and References (1500-word count) as a minimum, this section should include:
Provide a critical summary of the main points of your dissertation linked to your research question.
Demonstrate an awareness of the knowledge and skills that you have developed as a result of you having completed your dissertation and discuss how this will influence your future public health practice.
Should include all sources used in the writing of your systematic review.
Use Harvard style and in alphabetical order (This does not add to your overall word count).
Your ability to accurately cite and utilise academic sources in the writing of your systematic review will be a common theme that your supervisor will considered at each stage of your review – not just in this section. It will also be a key factor when considering your mark in
0 – 39%
Fail
40 – 49%
Fail
50 – 59%
Pass
60 – 69%
Strong Pass (merit)
70 – 79%
Very Strong Pass
(distinction)
80 – 100%
Exceptionally Strong Pass
(distinction)
Criterion 1
Mark: see above
Initiate, plan and design an investigation into an academic area of professional practice (Public Health)
Unable to initiate, plan and design an investigation into an academic area of professional practice
Inadequately initiates, plans and designs an investigation into an academic area of professional practice
Able to initiate, plan and design an investigation into an academic area of professional practice
Clearly initiates, plans and designs an investigation into an academic area of professional practice
Comprehensively initiates, plans and designs an investigation into an academic area of professional practice
Discerningly initiates, plans and designs an investigation into an academic area of professional practice
Criterion 2 Mark: see
Conduct an academic study considering its theoretical underpinning and offer insight into an area of professional practice (Public Health)
above
Unable to conduct an academic study and does not consider its theoretical underpinning nor offers insight into an area of professional practice
Inadequately conducts an academic study and does not consider adequately its theoretical underpinning nor offers insight into an area of professional practice
Adequately conducts an academic study considering its theoretical underpinning and offers insight into an area of professional practice
Conducts an academic study well considering its theoretical underpinning and offers insight into an area of professional practice
Competently conduct s an academic study considering its theoretical underpinning and offers insight into an area of professional practice
Rigorously conducts an academic study considering its theoretical underpinning and offers insight into an area of professional practice
Criterion 3 Mark: see
Demonstrate the ability to analyse, synthesise and evaluate findings appropriate to the study undertaken (Public Health)
above
Unable to demonstrate the ability to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate findings appropriate to the study undertaken.
Inadequately demonstrates the ability to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate findings appropriate to the study undertaken.
Demonstrates sufficient ability to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate findings appropriate to the study undertaken.
Demonstrates good ability to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate findings appropriate to the study undertaken.
Demonstrates very good ability to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate findings appropriate to the study undertaken.
Demonstrates outstanding ability to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate findings appropriate to the study undertaken.
Criterion 4
Mark: see above
Critically reflect on the processes undertaken as part of the study and offer creative solutions for future studies (Public Health)
Unable to critically reflect on the processes undertaken as part of the study nor offers creative solutions for future studies.
Inadequately critically reflects on the processes undertaken as part of the study nor offers creative solutions for future studies
Adequately critically reflects on the processes undertaken as part of the study and offers creative solutions for future studies
Demonstrates good ability to critically reflect on the processes undertaken as part of the study and offers creative solutions for future studies
Demonstrates very good ability to critically reflect on the processes undertaken as part of the study and offers creative solutions for future studies
Demonstrates outstanding ability to critically reflect on the processes undertaken as part of the study and offers creative solutions for future studies.
