STUDENT MODULE HANDBOOK

SemesterA/B2012/2013

Module: Honours Project in Health Studies

ModuleCode:6NMH0225

Module Leader: Lorraine Murray

Introduction
Welcome to the Honours Project in Health Studies Module (6NMH0225).
The module equips students with the knowledge and skills for
undertaking a project based activity. The student will develop skills in
undertaking a systematic appraisal of the evidence base relevant to a
chosen topic in a health related area. Students will develop their project
management skills through planning, undertaking and reporting of a
focussed project, based on this topic area, which will facilitate an
opportunity to consolidate and develop their knowledge and skills in
systematic inquiry.

CourseCode:6NMH0225
Course title:

Full: Honours Project in Health Studies

Short: Honours Project

Credit Points: 30
Level: 6

Module Leader
Name:LorraineMurray
School of Health and Social Work, Department of Adult Nursing and
Primary Care
Contact
Internal Extension: 5294

Email l.o.murray@herts.ac.uk

WorkBase
LF264 Wright Building, Hatfield Campus, Department of Adult Nursing
and Primary Care
Module Aim:
Consolidate and develop knowledge and skills in systematic
inquiry through the planning, undertaking and reporting of a
health focused project.
Learning Outcomes
Knowledge and Understanding
1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge of the process of systematically
reviewing evidence.
2. Critically evaluate the values inherent in the use of an evidence based
approach in health care
3. Critically evaluate the factors which affect the utilisation of research
findings as the evidence base for health.

Skills and Attributes

1. Identify and justify a project focus from appropriate evidence and
research findings
2. Plan, undertake and evaluate a review project utilising a systematic
approach
3. Conduct critical appraisal of relevant research and evidence
4. Critically reflect on the issues identified in the project

List of Key Words for Skills Development

 Action planning
Adaptability
Analysing
Numeracy
Communication and Information Technology
Critical Reasoning
Decision Making
Evaluating
Evaluating Information
Evaluating Method
Graphic
Information Gathering
Information handling
Interpreting Information
Designing investigative strategies
Non-verbal
Presenting (oral/written/graphic)
Problem Working
Reading Comprehension
Referencing
Reporting Findings
Responsibility
4

 Self discipline
Subject knowledge and Understanding
Summarising
Synthesising
Time-management
Writing

Module Content
Role of critiquing frameworks in literature reviews using a systematic
approach
Investigation of systematic reviews in health
Ethical and practical considerations in health research and evidence
including developments in Research Governance
Project management approaches, planning, managing and reporting
Students will be supported throughout by supervisors and a series of
workshops supporting themes such as time management, project
management skills and project framework.
Students will be allocated a project supervisor within the first 4 weeks of
the module.
Students will submit a project plan/proposal to the supervisor within 5
weeks of the start of the module.
Students will organise a minimum of 5 tutorials with the supervisor and
will keep a record of attendance.

Assessment:
Coursework: 100%

Assessment Notes:
All results will be published on StudyNet. You will be asked to submit
your work online via studynet for the majority of your assigned work.
When the provisional marks are released you will be able to access
your feedback online. It is important to read the feedback so you can
make improvements for your next essay writing.
If you pass with 40% or above you will see P= passed
If your work does not achieve above the Pass mark of 40% you will
see FREFC = Fail, Referred in Course work
If this is the case please view your online feedback sheet and make an
appointment with the first marker or module leader to discuss how
you can make improvements for your resubmission. Please check the
module guide for dates of resubmission. Please resubmit on line.
Second attempt-If you Pass this mark will be capped at 40% P(40)
If you fail at the second attempt you will obtain an
FREN= Fail, can re enrol OR
FNFA =Fail, no further attempts possible
NEW Regulations regarding obtaining more than 20% on first
submission
Module Boards and Short Course Boards have the authority and
discretion to allow a student the opportunity to be referred (indicated by
the award of a FREFE/FREFC/FREFB status code) in examination
and/or coursework assessment if he or she has achieved an overall
module numeric grade of 20% or more.
Each module has a second submission opportunity if you gained 20%
or more in your first submission ;
If you failed to achieve 20% at the first attempt or did not submit so
gained 0% then you will have to restudy the whole module
Assessment Details:
Project (5,000 to 6,000 words):
A research review, that attempts to address a clearly focussed question, of
the students choice. The question must relate to an area of health that is
6

relevant to the students programme of study. Therefore cross over

projects are allowed (e.g. psychology and health) so long as there are
clear implications for the field of health studies. Potential areas include
specialised mental health courts, leadership in the field of health, specific
smoking cessation interventions or the effect of changes of working
conditions on health (please note these are only suggestions to show the
potential range of topics).
Submission by 14:00 16th April, 2013
Two hard copies should be submitted to 1F275 and an electronic copy
submitted via the module studynet site.

Electronic submission:
A Student Guide for Electronic Assignment Submission-

Please submit electronically via the module website on Studynet.

Submission must be via StudyNet and not e-mail. E-mail
submissions will neither be accepted nor acknowledged.
a) The assignment should be submitted as a Word document named
as the module title (Honours Project in Health Studies) followed
by your name with no spaces or punctuation marks, and all lower
case.
b) Please ensure that your name and candidate number (this will
help if we have students with the same name in a cohort) also
appears as a header or footer on every page of your assignment
c) To submit via Studynet:
click on Assignments
Click on the submit assignment link
Scroll down to the Files To Submit for Marking area
Click on Browse and use the file selector to locate the file you
wish to submit
Click on Save
Once the submission process is complete you will receive a
receipt code for your records.
The assignment should be submitted by the date clearly indicated on
StudyNet.
It is recommended that you do this at least two hours before the
hand in time to allow for any difficulties or delays in transmission.
d) Assessment criteria should be followed as per module
handbook/module information.
e) Extensions should be sought from the Programme Tutor using the
appropriate self-carbonated form
f) Extra guidance/ support should be sought from the module leader

Project further details:

You are required to have decided your general topic area by week three of
the module so that a project supervisor can be allocated. You can then
decide on the specific topic in discussion with your supervisor.
It is recommended that a preliminary search is conducted before
committing to a specific topic to ensure that there is (potentially) enough
research available to create a 5,000 6,000 word report.
Remember that this is an undergraduate project and, as such, it is not
expected that you review too many studies in your project. Limitations on
8

the number of studies may be created by adjusting your

inclusion/exclusion criteria (for instance dates, participants, interventions,
outcomes, type of study). Though this seems artificial it is often the case
in the health economy that analyses are generated to address very specific
questions.

Project structure
Please note word allowances for each section are a suggestion and
should be viewed flexibly.
Title
The title should make it immediately clear to the reader what the project
focus is.

Abstract (400 words)

Good abstract writing is a skill that you should seek to cultivate as it
develops the ability top write succinctly and without waffle whilst giving
the pertinent information; a skill that will be useful in many career
pathways.
Oddly the abstract is the last part of the study to be written but when you
read the information to be included youll understand why.
The abstract should be presented in the following structured manner (with
subheadings) and have the heading of Abstract

Research question
Background
o One or two sentences to explain the context or expand on the
purpose and rationale of the review as defined in the title.
o A concise (and brief) statement of the purpose of the project,
preferably no longer than one sentence.

Search methods
9

o A brief description of the databases and any other sources of

evidence searched.
o Search terms should not be listed here.

Selection criteria
o A brief description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for
studies reviewed for the project.
Results
o Number of studies included.
o A breakdown of total quantitative studies and qualitative
studies.
o General impressions of the results.
Discussion
o You are expected to draw conclusions and present them
therefore a brief review of the main conclusions of your
project should be presented here.

The Research Question (100 words)

Present your research question and any sub sections to the research
question that you may feel are appropriate.
Background (1000 words)
The project you are undertaking will be based on an already-formed body
of knowledge. The background should address the context, help set the
rationale for the project, and explain why the questions being asked are
important. In other words: why you are researching this topic.
You will also be expected to justify the reason for the project in general
that is show an understanding of the need for reviews of published
evidence.
Methods (800 words)
Criteria for selecting studies for this review
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the search.
10

Search methods for identification of studies

A review of the databases searched, limitations put on the search
strategy (for instance cut off dates for the search). Searches of the
grey literature, hand searching and reference mining.
Reference must be made to the exact search that was used as
presented in the appendix of the project.

Results (2200 words)

You will be expected to present a table of included studies as an appendix
(see appendix C for examples of table headers).
This section is expected to be a review of the evidence you have found.
Included in this will be a short critical appraisal of each paper. At this
point it is not expected that you will introduce any conclusions. You are
presenting the findings and a short appraisal of the strengths and
weaknesses of each paper. One possible method of doing this is using a
theme approach as put forward by Aveyard (2011, see studynet reading
list). See Clare, C (2006) in the reading list for another example (make
sure you read the associated notes in the reading list entry), see also Ko,
Turner and Finnigan (2011). Alternatively the papers may be reviewed
individually as shown in Smith, Kane and Milne (2004), this method is
only really usable for small numbers of studies as it can be tedious to read
for larger numbers. Please note these are examples only and you should
not feel that you are constrained to copying one of these examples.

Discussion (1500 words)

Here you will discuss the main findings, including a summary of the main
findings of the included studies. This should be focussed on the outcomes
of the research question and not a list of the outcomes study by study.
11

Include a discussion of the amount and quality of studies that you found
(and reviewed) and the main conclusions that you have made from this.
Discussion of the implications that the quantitative and qualitative
research studies, if applicable, have (or have not) contributed to the
project and the area studied.
You are expected to draw conclusions and present them; therefore a brief
review of the main conclusions of your project should be presented here
including implications for practice and implications for future research.
Rounding off the discussion should be a review of the limitations of your
review.
References
References should be consistent, accurate and in line with the accepted
referencing system (Faculty of Health and Human Sciences Faculty
Guidelines for Referencing and Bibliographical Citation 2010/11. Based
on the APA 6th edition).
Appendices
Appendices should be presented after the reference section and each
appendix should be given a number or letter to identify it and preceded by
a separate sheet stating Appendix name and content of that appendix, e.g.
Appendix A Search Strategy. Generally the search strategy and the
results table are the only appendices required. You do not need to include
copies of studies, study review tools etc. Appendices and references are
not counted in the word count.

Plagiarism and Collusion

Please keep in mind the University rules on plagiarism and collusion
(UPR AS14 Appendix III) which can be found at:
http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/secreg/upr/AS14.htm

12

If you are in any doubt as to what constitutes plagiarism or collusion

please contact the module leader.
Serious Adverse Circumstances
'Serious adverse circumstances' are significant circumstances beyond a
students control that would have affected the students ability to perform
to their full potential if they were to submit or attend assessments at the
appointed time. If, despite such circumstances, you decide to sit/submit
an assessment, the University will not normally accept a claim of serious
adverse circumstances in respect of that assessment.
If there are Serious Adverse Circumstances that have affected your
assessment(s), you must communicate details to the University together
with appropriate evidence, using the form provided by your School.
You should read the Universitys guidance on Serious Adverse
Circumstances before you sit/submit an assessment. Full guidance can be
found in your Programme Handbook and in the A - Z Guide on StudyNet.

Location/Campus: Hatfield College Lane

Semester Module Will Run: A/B
Co Requisite: 6NMH1148
Reading and Other Resources: See studynet
Timetable: See studynet
Exam board: Thurs 30th May 2013
Results published (StudyNet): Week commencing 3rd June 2013
Deadline for Serious Adverse Circumstances (SAC): Monday 20th May
2013
School assessment panel: Wednesday 22nd May 2013
Deadline for appeals: Friday 21st June 2013
Resubmission date: By 14:00 Monday 24th June 2013
Resubmission Exam Board: Thursday 18th July 2013
13

All aspects of the module are potentially examinable.

The information given in this module guide is believed correct, but the
faculty reserves the right, at its discretion, and for any reason, to make
changes to the guide without prior notice and in particular:
To make changes to syllabuses and modules for reasons including
meeting technological or academic developments or employers
requirement particularly in specialist options;
Not to offer options, specialisms or elective modules within a
programme of study where there is insufficient student demand.

Appendix A
Mapping of Learning Outcomes to Assessment

14

Learning Outcome

Project

Knowledge and Understanding

1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge of the

process of systematically reviewing evidence.

2. Critically evaluate the values inherent in the

use of an evidence based approach in health care

3. Critically evaluate the factors which affect the
utilisation of research findings as the evidence
base for health.
Skills and Attributes

1. Identify and justify a project focus from

appropriate evidence and research findings

2. Plan, undertake and evaluate a review project

utilising a systematic approach

3. Conduct critical appraisal of relevant research

and evidence

15

Appendix B Marking Grid

6NMH0225 Honours Project in Health Project Marking Grid
Abstract
5
0-1
2-3
4-5
Well structured and presented.
Poor organisation Reasonable attention Good structure.
and structure.
paid to structure and Logical development.
organisation.
Background
15
0-6
There should be a discussion of the
Poor discussion
background to the area under study
of the
establishing the context and helping to set
background to the
the rationale for the need to review the
area under study
evidence in the chosen area. The
little context and
objectives set should be specific and lead
does not set the
naturally from the background as
rationale for the
presented.
need to review
the evidence in
the chosen area.
Rationale for the
chosen objectives
is poor and not
obviously related
to the
background.

7 - 11
Reasonable
discussion of the
background to the
area under study,
some context and
relates the rationale
for the need to
review the evidence
in the chosen area.
Rationale for the
chosen objectives is
acceptable and
related to the
background.

12 - 15
Excellent discussion
of the background to
the area under study,
clear (and relevant)
context and obviously
relates the rationale for
the need to review the
evidence in the chosen
area.
Rationale for the
chosen objectives is
good and clearly
related to the
background.

Methods

10

The search methods used should be both robust

and realistic: databases used, grey literature,
hand searching etc.
The mark should also take into account the
search strategy as presented in the appendix (use
of Boolean operators, wild cards etc) and the
inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Limited search
strategy.
Poor range of
databases or other
data sources.
Confused/simplistic
search strategy and
inclusion/exclusion
criteria.

All inclusion and exclusion criteria should be

reasonable both in their choice and their
justification.

Results
There should be clear critical analysis and
synthesis of the results, which are well
integrated and evaluated.
The use of tables is encouraged and should be
viewed as standard procedure.
The discussion of the strengths and weaknesses
of the reviewed studies carries a significant
weight in this section and should show evidence
of both the ability to analyse the studies but also
to justify the importance of the strengths and
weaknesses of the methodologies with
referenced support.
Breadth and depth of coverage is clearly
demonstrated in establishing support for the
discussion of methodological quality.

0-2

35

3-6
Reasonable search
strategy.
Average range of
databases or other data
sources.
Search strategy shows
some structure and the
use of Boolean
operators. Acceptable
choice of inclusion and
exclusion criteria with
some justification

7-10
Excellent search strategy.
Good range of databases
or other data sources.
Search strategy shows
appropriate structure and
the use of Boolean
operators, wild cards etc.
Excellent choice of
inclusion and exclusion
criteria with clear
justification.

0-12

13 - 21

22-30

Wholly or mainly
descriptive.
Limited use of
Academic
Literature/Research
evidence and little
understanding of
methodological
issues.

Shows some critical

analysis and the
beginning of synthesis.
Some evidence of
evaluation.
Moderate range of
supporting evidence with
some understanding of
the methodological
issues.

Clear evidence of critical

analysis/synthesis and
evaluation.
Extensive range of
supporting evidence with
a clear understanding of
the methodological issues
and their impact on study
quality.

Discussion

30

There should be clear analysis and synthesis of

evidence, which is well integrated and
evaluated.
A clear understanding of the value of both
paradigms of research to the project question.
Knowledge and understanding are applied to the
written work.
Demonstrates an appropriate use of academic
literature and research in all aspects of the
discussion.

Presentation and referencing

All key sources cited; consistent and accurate
use of accepted referencing system is
maintained.

0 - 10

11 - 23

24 - 30

Limited use of
Academic
Literature/Research
evidence.
Superficial
understanding of the
value of different
paradigms to the
generation of
evidence.
No, or little,
evidence of
integration of the
research findings.

Moderate range, with

complexity of supporting
evidence appropriate to
area of study.
Reasonable
understanding of the
value of different
paradigms to the
generation of evidence
and the beginnings of
integration of the two
types of research
findings.

Extensive range, depth

and complexity that
clearly establish a
evidence base for
discussion.
Excellent understanding of
the value of different
paradigms to the
generation of evidence
and clear integration of the
two types of research
findings.

0-1

2-3

4-5

Main sources not

cited. Inconsistent
use of accepted
referencing system.

Most sources cited using

accepted referencing
system.

All key sources cited.

Consistent and accurate
use of accepted
referencing system.

Appendix C Example of headers for the inclusion table.

Please note that these are suggested headers and do not have to be used: the text under the headers is made up and definitely
not exhaustive.
Suggested headings for the table of included studies.
Name and date Methods

Participants

Intervention

Outcomes
(quantitative)/
main focus
(qualitative)

Main
findings

Strengths and
weaknesses

Jones et al
(2010)

Randomised
controlled trial.
No blinding
Random allocation

Smokers aged over

18 years and at
least a three year
history of
smoking.

1. Telephone
support line
2. No intervention

Not smoking.
Measured at 1
month, three
months and six
months.

Smoking outcome
self reported.

Walsh and
Cowell (2008)

Phenomenology.
Smokers aged over
Focus group
18.
Convenience sample.

N/A

Investigation of
smokers views of
giving up.

Telephone
support line
reduced the
incidence of
smoking at 1
and 3 months
but less
significant at 6
months.
Stopping
smoking is
difficult
without
support. Most
reported that
going it
alone led to

Largely male
participants.

failure.

Appendix D Record of Supervision Tutorials

Record of Supervision Activities for Honours Project in Health (6NMH0225)
Student's Name:..
Date

Summary of content of supervision

session

Supervisor's Name:.

Negotiated Goals/Activities

Target
date

Date of
next
meeting

Student's
Signature

Supervisor's
signature