BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF HEALTH 20 Credit Level 7 Research Module SUMMATIVE ASSIGNMENT – PROTOCOL FOR A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (3,000 WORDS). The assignment for this module has been designed to give all students the opportunity to prepare a document demonstrating their ability to produce a coherent, theoretically based argument justifying secondary research within a specific field. The development of a protocol is a key requisite for systematic review work. The format for this assignment is informed mainly by Cochrane resources for preparing protocols and students are strongly encouraged to visit www.cochrane-handbook.org. Remember this assignment is basically a statement of intent; the protocol outlines the plan for the review and should describe the rationale for the review; the objectives; and the methods that will be used to locate, select and critically appraise the studies, and to collect and analyze data from the included studies. Preparing a protocol for a review makes you stop and think about what you’re doing; it can act as a working document for the reviewer(s); it can prevent duplication; and very importantly it can minimise bias by being transparent about what you plan to do in advance. The following guidelines have been devised to help in the preparation of the assignment. THE TITLE The title has to provide enough information to help the reader decide if the review protocol is going to be relevant to them. The Cochrane Collaboration has decided on a standard format for titles which helps convey information as quickly as possible: [Intervention] for [Problem] in [Category] E.g. Topical negative pressure (TNP) for treating chronic wounds. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE You need to indicate the time span, languages and countries from which background information has been gained. You need to present the background literature as a logical discussion, if necessary using sub-headings for clarification. It should include the size of the problem, uncertainty about dealing with it, why the intervention might work, and what it is supposed to achieve. You need to critically analyse and appraise the background literature in two ways, consider firstly the data/theory proposed, secondly whether the methods used to gather the data were appropriate. You need to conclude in a way that identifies the issues which arise from the background literature and leads into, or suggests the need for the proposed review. By the time the reader finishes your Background section they should be able to understand why you are asking the review question. OBJECTIVES/REVIEW QUESTION(S) In this section the main review question(s) to be addressed in your protocol needs to be stated. Getting the review question right is the most important step in doing your protocol. As well as telling others what the review is about, it will guide how you propose to search, select, appraise and analyse your studies. Make sure you spend time on this section. It is recomm ...

1. BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF HEALTH
20 Credit Level 7 Research Module
SUMMATIVE ASSIGNMENT – PROTOCOL FOR A
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (3,000 WORDS).
The assignment for this module has been designed to give all
students the opportunity to prepare a document demonstrating
their ability to produce a coherent, theoretically based argument
justifying secondary research within a specific field. The
development of a protocol is a key requisite for systematic
review work. The format for this assignment is informed mainly
by Cochrane resources for preparing protocols and students are
strongly encouraged to visit www.cochrane-handbook.org.
Remember this assignment is basically a statement of intent; the
protocol outlines the plan for the review and should describe the
rationale for the review; the objectives; and the methods that
will be used to locate, select and critically appraise the studies,
and to collect and analyze data from the included studies.
Preparing a protocol for a review makes you stop and think
about what you’re doing; it can act as a working document for
the reviewer(s); it can prevent duplication; and very importantly
it can minimise bias by being transparent about what you plan
to do in advance. The following guidelines have been devised to
help in the preparation of the assignment.
THE TITLE
The title has to provide enough information to help the reader
decide if the review protocol is going to be relevant to them.

2. The Cochrane Collaboration has decided on a standard format
for titles which helps convey information as quickly as possible:
[Intervention] for [Problem] in [Category]
E.g. Topical negative pressure (TNP) for treating chronic
wounds.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE
You need to indicate the time span, languages and countries
from which background information has been gained.
You need to present the background literature as a logical
discussion, if necessary using sub-headings for clarification. It
should include the size of the problem, uncertainty about
dealing with it, why the intervention might work, and what it is
supposed to achieve.
You need to critically analyse and appraise the background
literature in two ways, consider firstly the data/theory proposed,
secondly whether the methods used to gather the data were
appropriate.
You need to conclude in a way that identifies the issues which
arise from the background literature and leads into, or suggests
the need for the proposed review. By the time the reader
finishes your Background section they should be able to
understand why you are asking the review question.
OBJECTIVES/REVIEW QUESTION(S)
In this section the main review question(s) to be addressed in
your protocol needs to be stated. Getting the review question
right is the most important step in doing your protocol. As well

3. as telling others what the review is about, it will guide how you
propose to search, select, appraise and analyse your studies.
Make sure you spend time on this section. It is recommended
that you structure your question using PICOD, PICO or PIO –
this will depend on the type of question being asked.
P = Population i.e. the people affected by the
intervention/exposure
I = Intervention/exposure under scrutiny
C = Counter intervention
O = Outcome(s) of interest
D = Design of the studies likely to yield the most valid data
E.g. To undertake a systematic review of all randomised
controlled trials (RCTs) using TNP in the treatment of any
patient with a chronic wound to determine:
a) If TNP is more effective than wound dressings in terms of
improving healing rates, reducing cost, improving quality of
life, minimising pain and providing comfort.
b) If there is an optimum TNP regimen in terms of foam type,
degree of suction, continuous/intermittent suction, duration of
suction.
METHODS OF THE REVIEW
This section is the formal description of what you plan to do
once you have decided on your review question:
SEARCH STRATEGY
In your protocol the search strategy needs to be clearly
described. PI(C)O(D) will help determine key words, Medical
subject headings (MeSH), wildcards, acronyms, synonyms,
transatlantic terms that will be used in your search strategy.
You will need to describe how these will be linked with the
appropriate Boolean operators (e.g. AND, OR, NOT) to develop
a search strategy that will be used to search for primary studies

4. from a variety of resources, which you need to state, such as
electronic databases, journals, conference proceedings,
reference lists, grey literature, research registers, researchers
and manufacturers.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES.
Following the search you need to clearly describe in your
protocol the processes that will be used to decide if a primary
study will be included or excluded from the review. This will
initially depend on whether it fulfils the scope (PI(C)O(D))of
the review protocol.
For types of participants you need to think about the health
problem or population or setting.
E.g. You would consider a study fulfilling the scope of the TNP
review protocol if it defined chronic wounds as…
For types of interventions with a medication for example, you
need to think about drug preparation, route of administration,
dose, duration, frequency. For non-drug interventions such as an
educational intervention, defining the intervention can be a bit
more difficult – you need to consider exactly what was done,
how often it was done, who did it, were they trained, etc.
E.g. You would consider a study fulfilling the scope of the TNP
review protocol if it described the intervention of interest (in
this example TNP) as…
For types ofcounter interventions you need to decide whether
you will be comparing the intervention group with a placebo,
nothing, sham treatment or some other treatment.
E.g. You would consider any RCTs as fulfilling the scope of the
TNP review protocol where topical negative pressure was
compared with no treatment/sham/standard (which needs to be

5. defined)/other experimental interventions.
For types of outcome measures you need to think about the
primary outcome of interest and how that can be determined in a
valid and reliable way. There may be secondary outcomes of
interest e.g. cost, quality of life, pain, comfort and adverse
effects and how they too can be determined in a valid and
reliable way.
E.g. As there is no consensus as to the most valid and reliable
means of measuring healing rates of wounds, you would
consider a study fulfilling the scope of the TNP review protocol
if it measured healing by some objective method such as the
time to complete healing.
For types of studies you need to consider the design that will
best answer the question and whether you will restrict studies
on the basis of language, date or publication status.
E.g. To evaluate topical negative pressure for the treatment of
any patient with a chronic wound – you would consider a study
fulfilling the scope of the TNP review protocol, in the first
instance, if it was a randomized controlled trial - and in the
absence of any RCTs, controlled clinical trials would be
considered.
STUDY QUALITY ASSESSMENT CHECKLISTS AND
PROCEDURES
If the study fulfils the scope PI(C)O(D) of the review you need
to clearly describe in your protocol the processes used to
determine the methodological quality of the primary study to
decide if it will remain included, or be excluded, from the
review. It is best to refer to www.cochrane-handbook.org. in
order to determine the best way of assessing bias in a study. The
CONSORT statement also provides useful guidance for what
ought to be reported in RCTS at www.consort-statement.org.

6. DATA SYNTHESIS
If the study fulfils the scope of the review, and is of high
methodological quality, the results of this study need to be
extracted and considered for data synthesis. Data synthesis
involves collating and summarising the results of included
primary studies You need describe in your protocol your
proposed method of extracting and synthesising the results of
primary studies and how this will depend upon heterogeneity of
the studies identified. You need to consider whether your
synthesis would provide an estimate of overall effectiveness of
an intervention; review effectiveness in different studies,
populations and settings; investigate differences; answer the
review question.
Within your protocol you need to consider how a data extraction
form might be designed to collect all the information needed to
address the review question(s) which includes the name of the
review, date of data extraction, publication details, the scope
(PI(C)O(D)), methodological quality (specific factors), and
results of the primary studies.
REFERENCES
All references should be appended to the protocol using the
Harvard system.
Guidelines for preparing a protocol for a systematic review
approach/level 7/Dr Debra Evans/September 2010

7. JUS-515 Topic 6 - Motivational Theories Worksheet Scoring
Guide
REQUIREMENTS:
POSSIBLE
ACTUAL
General Assignment Instructions:
Directions: Read the following case scenarios and answer the
prompts for each. Include two to three resources for each
scenario.
Scenario 1: Police Chief Johnson
As the Chief of Police, what programs would you initiate to
increase retention in the department? Include both traditional
and innovative strategies to motivate the officers. Describe
three to four strategies. (500-750 words)
20
Scenario 2: Create an employee development programs for a
problem officer
Address the four prompts below in a 750-1,000 word response.
1. How do you prepare for this meeting?
5

8. 2. What development programs will you incorporate into a
performance plan for this officer?
10
3. How do you plan to evaluate changes in the officer’s
performance?
10
4. What accountability measures might be used?
10
Include 2-3 resources (references from research) into each
scenario
10
Documentation of sources is presented using APA formatting
guidelines.
5
TOTAL
70
Instructor Comments:

9. JUS-515 Topic 6 - Motivational Theories Worksheet
Directions: Read the following case scenarios and answer the
prompts for each. Include two to three resources for each
scenario.
Scenario – Johnson is the Chief of a large police department
experiencing high turnover. His Human Resources staff was
spending more time recruiting, hiring, and sending new recruits
to police academy. As soon as they got them trained, they would
be gone in one year. Citizens are upset with lack of officer
responses to calls for service and complaints were increasing
about officers’ decision making. As the Chief of Police, what
programs would you initiate to increase retention in the
department? Include both traditional and innovative strategies
to motivate the officers. Describe three to four strategies. (500-
750 words)
Create an employee development programs for a problem
officer.
You are a police agency supervisor and you’re about to have a
serious conversation with Joe, a problem officer who is driving
you nuts. Joe has been with the agency probably longer that you
have, and you cannot imagine how he has managed to last here
without being confronted about his performance before this. In
fact, you do not know how he even managed to get hired in the
first place!
Joe has the experience and know-how to do his job. Other
officers have observed Joe hanging out at the local gas station
or diner for most of his shift. Sometimes, he goes home.
You have received complaints from citizens that Officer Joe

10. does not return phone calls or conduct follow-ups on calls of
service he responded to.
You really have no idea of how to handle this situation. The
problem is that there is not a lot to put your finger on because
he never really does anything terrible. Everyone has known for
years that Joe is deadwood but, apparently, it has been ignored
and people have simply worked around him.
You know you must do something about this. You have
informed higher command. They are in support of your decision
to speak with Officer Joe. How do you prepare for this meeting?
What development programs will you incorporate into a
performance plan for this officer? How do you plan to evaluate
changes in the officer’s performance? What accountability
measures might be used? (750-1,000 words)