The purpose of the PRISMA literature review is to provide you with dedicated time (and a project) to begin to further investigate a specific subject, or sub-domain of health informatics.
In preparation for your clinical (practicum) rotations during the summer, it is beneficial to have some subject-matter depth related to the topic/subfield that you would like to explore.
I would recommend that you view this literature review as the beginning of a longer-term project that involves you staying up to date on the newest research, findings, etc.…related to whatever field it is that you would like to explorefor the immediate future (~ 2-3 year time frame to gain working knowledge of that domain)
Recommend health-informatic specific digital resources to use to help with idea(s) if you have none:
- JAMIA – https://academic.oup.com/jamia
- Frontiers – Insights in Health Tech Implementation:
https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/42124/insights-in-hea lth-technology-implementation
- BioMedCentral (BMC): implementation science:https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/
- BioMedCentral (BMC): medical research methodology https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com
- JMIR: https://www.jmir.org
- Elsevier – Health Policy and Technology:
- Cambridge – International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-t echnology-assessment-in-health-care – BMJ – Informatics: https://informatics.bmj.com/ – Lancet – Digital Health: https://www.resurchify.com/impact/details/21100922606 – Nature –Digital Medicine: https://www.nature.com/npjdigitalmed/ – Oxford Academic – GigaScience:
- Sage – Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/jtt
Examples of literature reviews (health informatic relevant) that follow PRISMA:
- Security and privacy in electronic health records: a systematic literature review
o https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23305810/
- Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: A systematic review
o https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29320966/
- The impact of digital health interventions on health-related outcomes in the workplace: A systematic review
o https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29942631/
- Technology-supported strategies for promoting user engagement with digital mental health interventions: A systematic review o https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35677785/
Details:
This project will consist of completing significant components of a literature review which will be due at the end of the semester (summer). Students will work on their own individual literature review project.
In order for this review to be as successful as possible, you will need to spend time refining your topic area and search terms so that you have a hyper specific topic that can be addressed by the EXISTING LITERATURE that is published and peer-reviewed.
Please refer to the examples of literature reviews above. Topics such as ‘barriers to telehealth’ and ‘user engagement’ are not specific enough to focus on a single area, but broad enough to encompass potentially a variety of different patient populations, conditions, and settings of care.
Using the PICO approach you should be able to drill down into a specific environment, population, or location; for a specific outcome(s) related to your topic of review.
If you are undecided on a topic, or want to work on a topic that relates to a potential fall project, please consider the below question(s) that come directly from one of our partners (The Nicholas Center):
1.) What is the impact of bio-wearable technologies and what are the reported physiological indicators? (for example: continuous glucose monitoring and skin conductivity) in predicting ‘challenging’ behaviors in the population with Autism Spectrum Disorder?
1a.) Are the reported physiological indicators aligned with the observed behaviors in the population with autism spectrum disorder?
The project will consist of the following PRISMA methodological and data elements of literature
review(http://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA_2020_chec klist.docx ):
- Introduction (3, 4)
- Methods (5-10 [10a,b], 13[a,b,c])
- Results (16-19)
- Discussion (23)
| Literature Review Project EXMEPLARY PROFICIENT DEVELOPING 90-100 80-89 70-79 | UNACCEPTABLE <69 | |||
| Integration of Knowledge 35% Topic focus 10% | The paper demonstrates that The paper demonstrates that The paper demonstrates that the author fully understands and the author, for the most part, the author, to a certain extent, has applied concepts learned in understands and has applied understands and has applied the course. Concepts are concepts learned in the course. concepts learned in the course. integrated into the writer’s own Some of the conclusions, insights. The writer provides however, are not supported in concluding remarks that show the body of the paper. analysis and synthesis of ideas. | The paper does not demonstrate that the author has fully understood and applied concepts learned in the course. | ||
| The topic is focused narrowly enough for the scope of this assignment. A thesis statement provides direction for the paper, either by statement of a position or hypothesis. | The topic is focused but lacks direction. The paper is about a specific topic but the writer has not established a position. | The topic is too broad for the scope of this assignment. | The topic is not clearly defined. | |
| Depth of analysis 30% | In-depth analysis and elaboration in all sections of the paper. | In-depth analysis & elaboration in most sections of the paper. | The writer has omitted pertinent content or content runs-on excessively. Quotations from others outweigh the writer’s own ideas excessively. | Cursory analysis in all the sections of the paper or brief discussion in only a few sections. |
| Cohesiveness 10% | Ties together information from all sources. Paper flows from one issue to the next without the need for headings. Author’s writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources. | For the most part, ties together information from all sources. Paper flows with only some disjointedness. Author’s writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources. | Sometimes ties together information from all sources. Paper does not flow disjointedness is apparent. Author’s writing does not demonstrate an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources. | Does not tie together information. Paper does not flow and appears to be created from disparate issues. Headings are necessary to link concepts. Writing does not demonstrate understanding any relationships |
| Spelling and grammar 5% | No spelling and/or grammar mistakes. |
| Sources 5% | More than 15 current sources, of which at least 5 are peer-review journal articles. Sources include both general background sources and specialized sources. Special-interest sources and popular literature are acknowledged as such if they are cited. All web sites utilized are authoritative. |
| Citations 5% | Cites all data obtained from other sources. APA citation style is used in both text and bibliography. |
10 current sources, of which at least 3 are peer-review journal articles. All web sites utilized are authoritative.
Fewer than 5 current sources, or fewer than 2 of 5 are peer-reviewed journal articles. All web sites utilized are credible.
| Minimal spelling and/or grammar mistakes. | Noticeable spelling and grammar mistakes. | Unacceptable number of spelling and/or grammar |
mistakes.
Fewer than 5 current sources, or fewer than 2 of 5 are peer-reviewed journal articles. Not all web sites utilized are credible, and/or sources are not
Cites most data obtained from other sources. APA citation style is used in both text and bibliography.
Cites some data obtained from other sources. Citation style is either inconsistent or incorrect.
current. Does not cite