[Answered]Identifying gaps during literature review or other types of evidence is an integral step in a systematic review. Gaps in research findings can be related to insufficient or vague information, biased information, inconsistent results, unknown consistency with the results, or not providing the right information. Research gaps can limit the ability for key stakeholders to make decisions and implement evidence-based practice changes (Robinson, 2013). – Original Papers Only

Identifying gaps during literature review or other types of evidence is an integral step in a systematic review. Gaps in research findings can limit the ability for key stakeholders to make decisions and implement evidence-based practice changes (Robinson, 2013). These gaps can be associated with insufficient or vague information, biased information, inconsistent results, unknown consistency with the results, and not providing the right information.

When conducting a literature review and identifying gaps in research studies it is important that CHNs carefully examine each study’s objectives and methodology as well as any outcomes or conclusions made. This will help to identify inconsistencies between studies or identify areas where more data might be needed which could possibly lead to further research being done. Additionally it is crucial that CHNs are aware of their own biases when reviewing the literature; they should be mindful that personal preconceptions may influence how they interpret/assess a particular study (Harding & Lyons, 2018).

Identifying gaps during literature review or other types of evidence is an integral step in a systematic review. Gaps in research findings can be related to insufficient or vague information, biased information, inconsistent results, unknown consistency with the results, or not providing the right information. Research gaps can limit the ability for key stakeholders to make decisions and implement evidence-based practice changes (Robinson, 2013).

Once potential gaps have been identified then strategies must be employed in order to fill those voids before making any healthcare decisions based off these reviews. One strategy involves developing rigorous search filters designed to exclude irrelevant information from searches while using specific keywords related to topics at hand this helps narrow down results so only relevant ones remain (Cabana et al., 1999). For example if looking into community health initiatives concerning diabetes then terms like “diabetes management” “prevalence”and ”risk factors” among others should all appear within search parameters.

Furthermore having multiple reviewers assess articles independently can also help reduce bias significantly by ensuring no single opinion influences outcomes too strongly (Harding & Lyons 2018) . Finally collaborating with experts from different fields—such as epidemiologists doctors nutritionists etcetera—can help generate ideas regarding what kind of studies need to be undertaken next in order fulfill any lingering knowledge gaps (Levin et al., 2017).

In conclusion through careful examination of existing literatures combined with strategic approaches such as search filters multiple reviewers and interdisciplinary collaboration CHNs can effectively identify research gaps enabling them provide high quality culturally competent care based upon sound science rather than outdated assumptions thus improving overall patient health outcomes considerably.

Cabana MD,. Rand CS , Powe NR , Wu AW,. Wilson MH,. Abboud PA.(1999 ). Why Do We Need Another Systematic Review? Journal Of Clinical Epidemiology 52:237–241 Retrived From https://doiorg1016jclinepi1998090452_3_4p237

Harding S., & Lyons N J.(2018 ). Transparent Reporting To Enhance The Quality And Efficiency Of Systematic Reviews: Promoting Best Practice Through The Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Protocols Plos Biology 16(7):e2005943 Retrived From https://doiorg101371plosbiome2005943

Levin A.. Ford D H.. Groves B R.(2017 ) Collaboration Between Public Health Professionals And Researchers To Identify Health Research Priorities American Journal Of Public Health 107(5):673–677 Retrived From http://ajphorgdoiabs1073003076457372062

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more