Final assignment: Review question: What is the effectiveness of SFT intervention compared to CBT in anxious adolescents aged between 13-18 in schools worldwide? You will have to define an appropriate review question and construct a review protocol to address the review question. You will also have to write a critical reflective discussion of the methods and processes in your review protocol, with reference to the relevant literature. This final assignment should comprise of a pdf document of: Part One: The Protocol for your proposed systematic review · Introduction/background to the protocol (max 750 words). · The protocol (max 2750 words). Part Two: · A critical reflective discussion of the protocol (max 1500 words). A protocol is essentially a roadmap of how you will conduct your review, i.e. the methods. The detailed guidance below lists all the required elements. Your submission should also include: • Relevant appendices (see Appendix 2 of module handbook for checklist of what to include in your final assignment and mandatory appendices) – please note that appendices and references are not included in the word count. Part One: Detailed guidance for the protocol We are not expecting you to carry out the review, but we expect you to produce a detailed protocol and reflective commentary/critical appraisal of the approach adopted (see Part two) using the resources highlighted within the module. In assessing student assignments we look for: 1. a) A clear review question and rationale why it should be the focus of a review. 2. b) Understanding of the basic principles and components of a systematic review. 3. c) Recognition of the challenges and using an approach appropriate to the review question. 4. d) A sound grasp of the strengths and limitations of assessing methodological quality, extracting data and synthesis. 5. e) Clarity of thinking as demonstrated in your protocol and reflective commentary. 6. f) All the correct appendices included. Please note: Introduction/background to the protocol The introduction/background to the protocol (max 750 words) should present a concise overview of the review area, background and justification for the focus of your review question, with reference to the literature. This introduction needs to be tailored to your review question and provide a rationale why this question should be the focus of a review. Think about originality. Has the review already been completed? Do you think there is evidence that this question can be justified in terms of there being a research gap (perhaps for policy makers, practitioners, patients/ carers etc)? The protocol (max 2750 words) should include: • A clear review question. • The selected review approach (. a Cochrane style review, a realist synthesis etc.) that is appropriate for your review question. The protocol should also include the following elements, all of which need to relate to the review question and reflect the review approach you are adopting: • • Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Criteria for selecting studies for this review. • • A comprehensive search strategy/plan: This plan should include a description of all the activities involved in the main searches, . specific searches, other resources to be searched, key search terms and any date limits. • • A detailed example of one of your search strategies for a single database, . a description of the selected database, search terms and date limits. You can discuss the implications of this example search in the critical reflective discussion, . the implications of the number of papers identified. Please include the following in an appendix: o The summary output from when the search was run including the database searched, the time periods, the search terms and the number of references identified at each stage. o Basic details on a sample of 5 to10 titles and abstracts from the search and a statement on whether they meet your inclusion criteria or not. The papers do not have to meet your inclusion criteria as this is only a first search. There is probably some overlap with how the relevance of studies will be assessed in the point below. • • A discussion of how both the relevance and quality of studies will be assessed. • • A description of the data to be extracted. A data extraction form must be included as an appendix. • • A plan for analysis/synthesis. • • Description of practical review process. Please describe how the references will be managed, the proposed time frame, quality management, whether there will be a single reviewer or a team and – if applicable – the roles of reviewers in a team. You may include other aspects that you consider to be important or that might usually be included for the type of review that you are proposing, . an assessment of heterogeneity or missing data. The choice of tense is up to you; but whatever tense you choose, it needs to be consistent within Part One. You can follow convention and write the protocol in the future tense as we are not expecting the review to be completed. We realise you may already have completed some aspects to the review, so you may also wish to make this clear too. Please note that there are penalties for omission of stipulated appendices (5% per appendix up to a maximum of 10% for two or more appendices). Part Two: Detailed guidance for the critical reflective discussion The critical reflective discussion (max 1500 words) should consider the protocol in a reflective critical manner. It can be written in the first person/active voice. It should be written in an academic style, supported by literature where appropriate. It should include the following elements and focus on your methodological choices, including: o • How does your review protocol relate to the topic area that you are interested in undertaking empirical research in during the research phase? (This could be either methodologically or within the topic area). o • A justification of the choices you made within your protocol including a discussion of their strengths with reference to the wider literature. For example, you might wish to compare your protocol with other reviews/protocols in the area and discuss why/how your protocol might be different. o • A discussion of the challenges of the proposed review methods, including any limitations/potential biases in the review process, with reference to the wider literature. o • A reflection on how you might want to change or develop your review in the future in light of the above points. Please note that the focus of this assignment is both on demonstrating awareness and understanding of the elements of a systematic review and on reflecting on the challenges of conducting a systematic review. We recognise that some students might be aware that they have gone down a certain path and it is too late to re-do their approach. In this case, we would like to see a reflection on what, having explored the approach further, makes the review approach inadequate for the aim of the review, and what approach may improve your review. It might be, for example, that the review question was far too broad, or a Cochrane approach was selected but there are many relevant qualitative papers. As long as you reflect on the potential implications of the (perceived) problems/errors, you are demonstrating an awareness and understanding of the elements of a systematic review. Referencing As with all coursework, this assignment must use a recognised system for referencing and citing other published work and materials. One of the important skills for students to learn is writing for dissemination in academic and professional journals. These use a range of recognised systems for referencing and citing others’ work. For this assignment use the APA 7th style. Failure to do so may result in your work being penalised as presentation is taken into account in our marking schemes. The APA 7th system is the referencing style of the American Psychological Association. APA is an Author-Date referencing system and is commonly used in Psychology. It uses a (author, date) format to cite others’ work in the main body of the text and then lists all cited work alphabetically by author name in the reference list at the end of the report. It is crucial that you reference properly and do not plagiarise from the Web or published materials (see Blended Learning PhD Handbook). We want you to present your own understanding and interpretations of the materials read. We systematically use electronic checking mechanisms such as TURNITIN to check assignments for plagiarism and we treat plagiarism in assignments very seriously. Appendix 1: Protocol summary template (max 2 pages) 1. Review question 2. Review approach 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria 4. Comprehensive search strategy 5. Detailed example of one of your search strategies for a single database, . a description of the selected database, search terms and date limits. 6. A discussion of how both the relevance and quality of studies will be assessed 7. A description of the data to be extracted – and tool (as an appendix) if available 8. Synthesis plan 9. Description of practical review process. o – how the references will be managed, o – the proposed time frame, o – quality management, o – whether there will be a single reviewer or a team and – if applicable – the roles of reviewers in a team. Please note a maximum of 2 pages can be submitted – any additional pages will not be reviewed by the convenors. You can include a references list as an appendix, but please do not include any additional appendices.