The PICO question:
For patients with chronic diseases in underserved populations, does the implementation of health literacy interventions improve patient understanding of health information, adherence to treatment plans, and overall health outcomes compared to standard care without specific interventions?
Reviewing the Literature
Student Name:
Summary of Clinical Issue (200-250 words):
PICO Question:
Part 1: Literature Evaluation Table
Locate a minimum of 10-12 peer-reviewed articles that support your proposed topic. Eight of the 10-12 peer-reviewed articles must be
research-based (i.e., a study which is qualitative, quantitative, descriptive, or longitudinal).
Begin your search for literature by utilizing the databases located in the GCU Library. Contact your instructor, the librarian, or library
staff for additional researching tips and keyword suggestions.
Preview each of the articles chosen by reading the article abstracts and summaries. Article abstracts and summaries provide a concise
description of the topic, research outcomes, and significance of findings.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
Criteria
Article 1
Article 2
APA-Formatted Article
Citation With
Permalink
How Does the Article
Relate to the PICO
Question?
Quantitative,
Qualitative (How do
you know?)
Purpose Statement
Research Question
Outcome
Setting
(Where did the study
take place?)
Sample
Method
Key Findings of the
Study
Recommendations of
the Researcher
2
Article 3
Criteria
Article 4
Article 5
APA-Formatted Article
Citation With
Permalink
How Does the Article
Relate to the PICO
Question?
Quantitative,
Qualitative (How do
you know?)
Purpose Statement
Research Question
Outcome
Setting
(Where did the study
take place?)
Sample
Method
Key Findings of the
Study
Recommendations of
the Researcher
3
Article 6
Criteria
Article 7
Article 8
APA-Formatted Article
Citation With
Permalink
How Does the Article
Relate to the PICO
Question?
Quantitative,
Qualitative (How do
you know?)
Purpose Statement
Research Question
Outcome
Setting
(Where did the study
take place?)
Sample
Method
Key Findings of the
Study
Recommendations of
the Researcher
4
Article 9
Criteria
Article 10
Article 11
APA-Formatted Article
Citation With
Permalink
How Does the Article
Relate to the PICO
Question?
Quantitative,
Qualitative (How do
you know?)
Purpose Statement
Research Question
Outcome
Setting
(Where did the study
take place?)
Sample
Method
Key Findings of the
Study
Recommendations of
the Researcher
5
Article 12
Part 2: Analysis of Literature
In 750-1,000 words, write a review of the literature. This section should comprehensively summarize previous research related to your
topic and demonstrate support for your PICO question.
Remember, you are building an argument to for your proposed evidence-based project; this is not simply an article review.
Appraise each article and answer the following questions for each (one to two sentences is sufficient to answer each question):
o
Summarize the purpose of the article or research.
o
Describe how the article or research relates to the health care problem or issue you selected.
o
Explain how the evidence in the article or research supports your proposed intervention.
6
Reviewing the Literature – Rubric
Total 110 points
Criterion
1. Unsatisfactory
2. Less Than
Satisfactory
3. Satisfactory
4. Good
5. Excellent
Summary of Clinical Issue
0 points
1.43 points
1.65 points
1.87 points
2.2 points
Summary of Clinical Issue
Summary of clinical issue is
omitted.
The clinical issue is only
partially discussed.
The clinical issue is generally
outlined. More information
or support is needed.
The clinical issue is
described. Minor detail is
needed for accuracy or
clarity.
The clinical issue is succinct
and thoroughly described.
PICO Questions
0 points
2.15 points
2.47 points
2.8 points
3.3 points
PICO Questions
The PICO question for the
proposed topic is omitted.
NA
NA
NA
The PICO question for the
proposed topic is stated.
Literature Evaluation Table 0 points
10.73 points
12.38 points
14.03 points
16.5 points
Literature Evaluation Table
The table is incomplete or
fails to meet the assignment
criteria overall.
Fewer than 10 articles in
support of the proposed
topic are presented. Fewer
than six articles are peer
reviewed or research based.
The criteria for this
assignment are only partially
met.
Ten to 12 articles in support
of the proposed topic are
presented. One or two
articles are not peer
reviewed. Only six or seven
articles are research based.
The criteria are generally met
for each article. There are
some omissions or
inaccuracies.
Ten to 12 peer-reviewed
articles in support of the
proposed topic are
presented. At least eight of
the articles are research
based. The criteria are
adequate and met for each
article.
Ten to 12 peer-reviewed
articles in support of the
proposed topic are
presented. Eight or more of
the articles are research
based. The criteria are
complete, informative, and
fully met for each article.
Analysis of Literature:
Summary of Purpose
0 points
10.73 points
12.38 points
14.03 points
16.5 points
The analysis of the literature
is incomplete.
The appraisal of each article
is inaccurate or contains
omissions. The overall
summary analysis presented
does not demonstrate
support for the PICO
question.
Each article is appraised, and
the purpose is generally
summarized. Some aspects
are vague. The overall
summary analysis of the
research demonstrates
general support for the PICO
question. More information
or support is needed.
Each article is appraised, and
the purpose is discussed. The
summary is informative and
concise for each article. The
overall summary analysis of
the research demonstrates
support for the PICO
question. Some detail is
needed for support or
accuracy.
Each article is clearly
appraised, and the purpose
is detailed and concise. The
summary is informative and
concise for each article. The
overall summary analysis of
the research demonstrates
compelling support for the
PICO question.
0 points
10.73 points
12.38 points
14.03 points
16.5 points
How each article or the
research relates to the
selected health care problem
or issue is not discussed. The
narrative does not support
the selected problem or
issue.
How each article or the
research relates to the
selected health care problem
or issue is only partially
discussed. The narrative only
partially supports the
selected problem or issue.
A summary for how each
article or the research relates
to the selected health care
problem or issue is
presented. Some aspects are
vague. The narrative
generally supports the
selected problem or issue.
More information or support
is needed.
How each article or the
research relates to the
selected health care problem
or issue is described. The
narrative establishes support
for the selected problem or
issue. Some detail is needed
for support or accuracy.
A description for how each
article or the research relates
to the selected health care
problem or issue is detailed.
The narrative is thorough,
well supported, and
establishes support for the
selected problem or issue.
Analysis of Literature:
Explanation of How
Research Evidence
Supports Proposed
Intervention
0 points
14.3 points
16.5 points
18.7 points
22 points
An explanation for how the
evidence in the article or the
research supports the
proposed intervention is not
Analysis of Literature:
presented. The evidence
Explanation of How Research does not support the
Evidence Supports Proposed proposed intervention
Intervention
The explanation for how the
evidence in the article or the
research supports the
proposed intervention is
incomplete. The evidence
only partially supports the
proposed intervention.
A summary for how the
evidence in the article or the
research supports the
proposed intervention is
presented. The evidence
generally supports the
proposed intervention.
An explanation for how the
evidence in the article or the
research supports the
proposed intervention is
presented. The evidence
supports the proposed
intervention.
A well-supported explanation
for how the evidence in the
article or the research
supports the proposed
intervention is presented.
The evidence demonstrates
strong support for the
proposed intervention.
Thesis Development and
Purpose
0 points
5.01 points
5.78 points
6.55 points
7.7 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts
the development of the
paper. Thesis is descriptive
and reflective of the
Thesis is comprehensive and
contains the essence of the
paper. Thesis statement
makes the purpose of the
paper clear.
Analysis of Literature:
Summary of Purpose
Analysis of Literature:
Relation of Research to
Proposed Project Topic
Analysis of Literature:
Relation of Research to
Proposed Project Topic
Thesis Development and
Purpose
Paper lacks any discernible
Thesis is insufficiently
Thesis is apparent and
overall purpose or organizing developed or vague. Purpose appropriate to purpose.
claim.
is not clear.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
2. Less Than
Satisfactory
3. Satisfactory
0 points
5.72 points
6.6 points
7.48 points
8.8 points
Statement of purpose is not
justified by the conclusion.
The conclusion does not
support the claim made.
Argument is incoherent and
uses noncredible sources.
Sufficient justification of
claims is lacking. Argument
lacks consistent unity. There
are obvious flaws in the logic.
Some sources have
questionable credibility.
Argument is orderly but may
have a few inconsistencies.
The argument presents
minimal justification of
claims. Argument logically,
but not thoroughly, supports
the purpose. Sources used
are credible. Introduction
and conclusion bracket the
thesis.
Argument shows logical
progression. Techniques of
argumentation are evident.
There is a smooth
progression of claims from
introduction to conclusion.
Most sources are
authoritative.
Clear and convincing
argument presents a
persuasive claim in a
distinctive and compelling
manner. All sources are
authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing
0 points
3.58 points
4.13 points
4.68 points
5.5 points
Includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar,
language use.
Surface errors are pervasive
enough that they impede
communication of meaning.
Inappropriate word choice or
sentence construction is
used.
Frequent and repetitive
mechanical errors distract
the reader. Inconsistencies in
language choice (register) or
word choice are present.
Sentence structure is correct
but not varied.
Some mechanical errors or
typos are present, but they
are not overly distracting to
the reader. Correct and
varied sentence structure
and audience-appropriate
language are employed.
Prose is largely free of
Writer is clearly in command
mechanical errors, although of standard, written,
a few may be present. The
academic English.
writer uses a variety of
effective sentence structures
and figures of speech.
Paper Format
0 points
3.58 points
4.13 points
4.68 points
5.5 points
Use of appropriate style for
the major and assignment.
Template is not used
appropriately, or
documentation format is
rarely followed correctly.
Appropriate template is
used, but some elements are
missing or mistaken. A lack
of control with formatting is
apparent.
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors
may be present.
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no
errors in formatting style.
All format elements are
correct.
Documentation of Sources
0 points
3.58 points
4.13 points
4.68 points
5.5 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Criterion
Argument Logic and Construction
Argument Logic and Construction
1. Unsatisfactory
Citations, footnotes,
Sources are not documented.
references, bibliography, etc.,
as appropriate to assignment
and style.
4. Good
5. Excellent
arguments and appropriate
to the purpose.
© 2024. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.