Systematic Review. Request for Proposal. Grant Funding Opportunity for DNP students at UMDNJ-SN

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Systematic Review. Request for Proposal. Grant Funding Opportunity for DNP students at UMDNJ-SN"

Shavonne Hamilton
6 years ago
Views:

1 Systematic Review Request for Proposal Grant Funding Opportunity for DNP students at UMDNJ-SN Sponsored by the New Jersey Center for Evidence Based Practice At the School of Nursing University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

2 Systematic Reviews Request for Proposal for Grant Funding I. The New Jersey Center for Evidence Based Practice (NJCEBP), a collaborating center of the Joanna Briggs Institute for Nursing and Midwifery requests proposals for systematic reviews related to nursing and healthcare. The purpose of this request is to develop a better understanding of the present state of knowledge on specific issues of priority to nursing and healthcare by soliciting proposals to: synthesize the existing research; provide critical assessment of the present knowledge level; and, identify future knowledge needs in the area of review, and importantly, to identify best practice. Prospective reviewers will be DNP students who are conducting a JBI approved systematic review as a capstone project under the guidance of SN faculty. Duration of the capstone project should not exceed one year. II. The NJCEBP encourages and supports the development and use of the best scientific evidence on the range of issues relating to nursing and healthcare; therefore, the Center will provide grant funds in the amount of $500 for the conduct of one systematic review per cohort. There is no limit on the number of reviews that can be submitted, but only one grant will be allocated per cohort. III. IV. For the purpose of this RFP, a systematic review is considered to be a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Methods used should also minimize bias and ensure that results are reproducible. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) or interpretive methods (metasynthesis) may or may not, depending on appropriateness, be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Systematic reviews differ from other types of literature review in that they adhere to a strict scientific design in order to make them more comprehensive, to minimize the chance of bias, to instill rigor, and to ensure their reliability. Rather than reflecting the views of the authors or being based on only a selection of the published literature, they contain a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence. To be considered for this grant funded review, the reviewers must be willing to use the JBI method of systematic review and to submit their proposal to JBI for scientific review and to publish the review in the JBI online library of systematic reviews. V. The review proposal must adhere to the outline attached and must be no more than fifteen pages. The plan must be developed using the JBI CREMS software. Additional

3 information to be included as appendices to the CREMS generated proposal include: detailed information about the review team; project budget with specific detail on how funds will be utilized; and a project work-plan, including major milestones, and dates of achievement. As with any rigorous review, the team must consist of a minimum of two people. As this is a student capstone project, the students capstone chair must be willing to serve on the review team and participate in the review. The capstone chair will be listed as the third or last member of the team unless other team arrangements are made. As an additional appendix, the capstone chair should state this willingness (this can be an attachment). VI. Final Report The final product will be a systematic review including the following elements: 1. Background including the research question(s) and project description 2. Project goals and objectives 3. Search strategy for sources of evidence, including information on the databases and resources used 4. Selection criteria for quality of evidence (inclusion and exclusion criteria) 5. Data collection and analysis (critical assessment), including statistical pooling or metaanalysis of data, if applicable 6. Main results and/or main conclusions of the review in answering the initial research question(s) 7. Implications for further research 8. Authors conclusion 9. Citations 10. Acknowledgements VIII. How to Apply One copy of the proposal must be submitted in hard copy and received by 12 noon on January 15 for odd numbered DNP cohorts and by July 15 for even numbered cohorts. An electronic (Microsoft Office Word) version should also be sent by . Proposals that are incomplete will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. If a proposal is received after the due date, it will be returned to the applicant without review. Each page must be single-sided and numbered and stapled. Do not bind. No additional materials such as videos are permitted (as these items will not be duplicated or submitted for peer review). Submit proposals to Dr. Cheryl Holly, GA #213 IX. Allowable Costs Applicants must provide a detailed budget, with accompanying justification for all operating expenses. The budget must be consistent with the stated objectives and planned activities for the project. Overhead costs such as office space, light, heat, and utilities will not be included for funding. Salary support should not be included. Proposals exceeding the grant funds will not be reviewed. Allowable costs an include purchase of articles or other forms of evidence for the review, travel, statistical consultation, data entry, etc.

4 X. Award Criteria Funding is on a competitive basis. All proposals submitted in response to this RFP will compete for available funds with all other proposals. Proposals submitted will be reviewed in a two-stage process. This process is designed to be scientifically credible, transparent and accountable. The first stage is a preliminary review by the Director of the NJCEBP; the second stage is a peer review by experts in systematic reviews. Upon receipt, the Director will review all applications for completeness and for compliance with the parameters of this RFP. Proposals that are not complete, do not provide adequate information in the required sections, exceed length limitations or are otherwise in a form that is unacceptable for peer review, will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. Proposals that are complete and that comply with this RFP will then be reviewed by peer reviewers. Peer reviewers are asked to assess the project s scientific merit, feasibility, and budget. Overall, the primary criteria for funding will include: Technical soundness of the proposed review plan, including feasibility of timelines and ability of the team to complete the review; importance of the review in advancing nursing practice (education, administration or education) or improving healthcare of individuals, groups or populations. The Director will notify the successful applicants and the names of the review team members and an abstract of their proposal will be posted on the NJCEBP website. Teams selected for this grant funding opportunity will be known as Evidence Based Scholars. Questions regarding this grant funding should be addressed to Dr. Holly at or hollych@umdnj.edu

5 Developing a Protocol for a Systematic Review Using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Method The New Jersey Centre for Evidenced Based Healthcare and Patient-Outcomes Research Important Points University of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ, School of Nursing 1. A systematic review proposal serves as a map for the review. Transparency is important. The objective in writing a proposal for a systematic review is to clearly and succinctly describe what you want to do, why it is important that the review be done, what methods will be used to conduct the review and how the findings of the review might be utilized. 2. The review must be written in English (AU) and in Vancouver format. This guideline is written in English (AU). 3. The body of the proposal for a systematic review should abut pages of single spaced text. 4. If the review is undertaken as a doctoral study project, at least one of the reviewers must be a faculty member, and the faculty member must be trained in the JBI method of systematic review. 5. If the review is other than a doctoral study project, either the primary or secondary reviewer must be trained in the JBI method of systematic review. 6. Expect to spend at least 8-12 months completing the review. 7. Use of the CReMS proposal development software provides pre-specified language with a fill in the blanks option to customize the review. 8. Always read one or two proposals on the JBI website before starting to write your own to get a feel for the flow and wording of the JBI method.

6 The key components of a systematic review proposal are 1. Title 2. Reviewers 3. Beginning and Ending Dates 4. Objective 5. Background 6. Criteria for inclusion of studies in the review Types of Studies Types of Intervention/Phenomenon of Interest Types of Outcomes 7. Search Strategy 8. Assessment of Methodological Quality Critical Appraisal 9. Method to Extract Data 10. Method to Synthesize Data 11. References and Appendices Any acknowledgements should be listed at the end of the paper

7 Title of Systematic Review Protocol The title of the protocol should precisely describe the review to be undertaken. It should not be more than ten-twenty words. One simple sentence that includes the aims and outcomes of the study should suffice. The formal title of the review should be written after the aims and objectives of the review are finalized to ensure congruency. To be a comprehensive review, the review must consider both qualitative and quantitative evidence. Title examples: A systematic review of the effectiveness of smoking cessation strategies for adolescents in a residential facility: Systematic review protocol A qualitative systematic review of the experiences of families of patients in an intensive care unit A comparison of the cost effectiveness of three different methods of intravenous dressing change Reviewers At a minimum, a primary and secondary reviewer should be identified. At least one of the reviewers must be trained in the JBI method of systematic review. Reviewers work independently of each other. The primary reviewer is responsible for the overall conduct of the review and for keeping reviewers on track and moving toward completion of the review. Both reviewers should have a good understanding of research design and the ability to critique research studies. Identifying a third reviewer at the beginning of the review in the event there is disagreement between the primary and secondary reviewer. The third reviewer will assist in resolving any differences. If the review is a doctoral study project, the faculty member will resolve any differences.

8 Beginning and Ending Dates An attempt should be made to identify the dates when the review will begin and the anticipated date of completion. Determining these dates before the review begins can assist in keeping the project on track. Most reviews require 8-12 months for completion. Background The background should describe the issue under review in sufficient detail so that the necessity for conducting the review is clear and unambiguous. It should lay a broad base for the issue that led to the review. A description of the target population, the interventions or phenomenon to be reviewed, and the potential uses of the findings should be presented. Use of statistics can aid in understanding the significance of the review. The background should indicate why the review is necessary and its contribution to health care. The background provides the foundation for development of the review objectives and aims. Questions that need to be addressed in the background include: Who will benefit? What are the specific issues to be addressed? What is the target population? What is the context of the investigation? Why is it necessary to review and pool studies on this topic? Why is this work important? What has already been published?

9 How will this build on published literature, inform practice, and/ or formulate policy? Objectives The review objectives are grounded in the review question and provide the basis for development of the inclusion criteria. The rationale for the objectives should be found in the background. Review objectives are written in measurable terms and need to address the target population, intervention or phenomenon and outcomes. An overall objective for the review is provided first, followed by subobjectives, as appropriate. Some questions to ask as the proposal objectives are written: Does the overall objective clearly describe the review s purpose and direction? Are the objectives realistic and feasible in relation to the completion date selected? Do the objectives match what is described in the background? Are the objectives stated in measurable terms? Are there objectives written that describe the anticipated outcomes of the review? Criteria for Inclusion of Studies in the Review Inclusion criteria Systematic reviews are distinguished by the transparency with which they are conducted. One of the features that allow this transparency is the pre-specification of the review s inclusion and exclusion criteria, that is, those criteria that make a study eligible for inclusion in the review. Eligibility criteria include parts of the review question and the types of studies that will be sought. The types of participants, types of interventions or phenomenon of interest, and the types of outcomes expected are addressed in the eligibility criteria for the review. Types of studies

10 This section describes the type of studies that will be considered for review. Always start this section by saying: The systematic review will consider randomized controlled trials that investigated.. OR This systematic review will consider studies using a qualitative design, such as phenomenology, grounded theory, narrative review.. In those instances where the reviewer believes that it might be difficult to find the preferred study, the type of study or other literature that will be used instead should also be described. For example: In the absence of randomized controlled trials, descriptive studies such as. Types of Participants Participants in a systematic review refer to the subjects used in the primary studies that will be included in the review. Criteria for selection of these participants must be very clear and specific as key words for searching are developed using these criteria. Participants should be defined in three ways. First, the disease or condition of interest, such as urinary tract infection, breast cancer or type 2 diabetes should be specified. Second, the population of interest must be described in as few words as possible. This step involves deciding on the characteristics or attributes of the population, such as age, race, ethnicity, and educational level. Finally, the type of setting, such as acute care hospital, community mental health center, and ambulatory surgery is described. For example, in a study of the effectiveness of warming methods on operative hypothermia: Adults 18 years of age, who underwent any type of surgery will be included. Patients who were subject to deliberate hypothermia such as those for cardiac or neurosurgical interventions were excluded.

11 In this example, the condition of interest is hypothermia, the population of interest is any adult aged 18 years or older, and the setting of interest is surgery. Types of Interventions/Phenomenon of Interest Next, a description of the types of interventions or phenomenon of interest is necessary. If the proposal is for a review of interventions, the primary and comparison interventions need to be fully described. Following a description of the primary intervention of interest, a decision needs to be made regarding the comparisons, for example, a placebo, another intervention, nothing or usual care. Observational systematic reviews (such as those about risk factors) and qualitative reviews do not have a comparator. Types of Outcomes Explicit criteria for establishing the presence of appropriate outcomes and if necessary, their combinations must be specified. The background should provide enough information to justify the outcomes included and potentially those that were not included. Each outcome should be described and the way in which it was measured should be provided. For example: in days. Length of stay, which will be inclusive of day of admission to day of discharge, will be measured Search strategy for identification of studies The search for articles and papers to be included in the review can be compared to enrolling patients into a primary research study. The articles selected as a result of the search process are, in essence, the subjects for the review. Keywords and phrases provide the foundation for searching, and are derived from the review question. The search includes both published and unpublished work.

12 A concept map is useful in expanding on key words. For example, the phrase critical care can be mapped to include intensive care, intensive care unit, critical care unit, or ICU as well as identified by specialty area, for example, coronary care unit, paediatric intensive care unit, and surgical intensive care unit. By mapping each of the key words and phrases, a more comprehensive search can be conducted. The phases of the search strategy should be very detailed including the initial search and the subsequent expanded search. The search should be described in stages. Stage 1 is the first attempt at the search in which the reviewers use a limited set of key words to find potentially relevant studies. These studies are reviewed in an effort to expand key words and phrases for a more in-depth search. At a minimum, Medline, CINHAL, and the Virginia Henderson Library of Sigma Theta Tau International should be searched during this first stage. As well, attempts should be made to determine if a systematic review already exists on the topic of interest. This is accomplished by searching the Cochrane, Campbell, and Joanna Briggs Institute databases. If a review is found that matches the one under consideration, a decision needs to be made to forego the review or expand on it in some manner. For example, years can be extended, databases can be added, or a new population or setting can be added. in Stage 1. Stage 2 expands the databases used and searches these using the full list of key words developed Stage 3 involves searching the reference lists of identified articles for any relevant references and hand searching appropriate journals. As well, an author search should be conducted on the names of authors known to have conducted research on the review objective. A list of all databases and grey literature and the full list of key words used in the search should be provided. The timeframe for searching each database must be included. If a decision is made not to search the entire database (i.e., from inception) and a narrower timeframe is used, such as , a justification needs to be provided.

13 Databases to search: 1. Stage 1: Medline, CINAHL, Virginia Henderson Library 2. Stage 2: Medline, CINAHL, Academic Search Premiere, Web of Science, DARE. Other include those databases that have relevance to your review objective, e.g., PsyINFO, ERIC 3. Grey Literature: Virginia Henderson Library, MEDNAR (which includes Google Scholar), New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report, scirus.com, Proquest Dissertations. Other. Include professional organizations relevant to the review objective to search for reports, guidelines, unpublished research, e.g., American Heart Association Methods of the review Assessment of methodological quality A description of how the quality of each paper will be determined is necessary for the proposal. The appropriate JBI critical appraisal tool should be used. A pre-review determination needs to be made as the scoring of each of the tools used. Data extraction A description of how data will be extracted and managed must also be included. The data extraction tool to be used should be included in the appendices. The appropriate JBI data extraction sheet should be used. Data synthesis The appropriate JBI data synthesis method should be described here.

14 References Vancouver style only Acknowledgements If you received help in developing the proposal from anyone, it should be acknowledged here. If the proposal is for a doctoral project, the project committee should be acknowledged here. Appendices Include all of the JBI critical appraisal tools and data extraction tools to be used. Prepared by: Dr. Cheryl Holly Date: August 7, 2011 Reference: Holly C, Salmond S, Saimbert MK (2011). Comprehensive Systematic Review for Advanced Nursing Practice. NY: Springer Publishing

Assessing competence during professional experience placements for undergraduate nursing students: a systematic review

University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health - Papers Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health 2012 Assessing competence during professional experience placements for