NHS FPX 9902 Assessment 5 Reflection


Hi, I am…… As I am near the end of this course, I reflect on the progress I have made in my doctoral project and my experiences throughout the course. Reflection is a powerful tool that allows us to assess our achievements, challenges, and areas for improvement. It allows us to deepen our critical thinking and problem-solving skills, offering valuable insights into our project journey and growth as researchers. In this virtual check-in, I look forward to discussing and exploring these reflections, gaining further clarity on my work, and identifying strategies for continued progress.

Improvement Opportunities Related to Literature Synthesis

Reflecting on developing a literature synthesis for the PICOT question focused on interventions for COPD, I recognize the importance of a thorough and systematic literature search strategy. Conducting an extensive search using relevant keywords and MeSH terms enabled me to retrieve various sources, including published research, systematic reviews, and official publications. By incorporating manual searches of reference lists, I ensured that no relevant studies were overlooked (Golder et al., 2019). The screening process based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria helped to refine the initial pool of articles, resulting in a final selection of 33 articles that met the eligibility requirements. These articles encompassed various study designs, providing a robust and representative body of evidence to address the research question effectively (Costal et al., 2021).

Throughout the literature synthesis process, I gained success and encountered challenges. Success included the identification of key themes and trends within the selected articles, as well as the recognition of knowledge gaps and potential areas for future research. The detailed analysis of each piece of evidence developed an understanding of the beneficial outcomes of telehealth interventions on the health of COPD patients. However, I also encountered challenges during the process. Some studies had limited sample sizes or methodological limitations, which required careful consideration during the analysis and interpretation of the evidence.

Additionally, the vast amount of information gathered required cautious organization and synthesis to ensure a coherent and comprehensive review (Riccio et al., 2020). Moving forward, there are opportunities for improvement in the literature synthesis. The opportunities include enhancing critical appraisal skills to assess the quality and strength of the evidence, conducting a thorough assessment of evidence quality to identify biases and limitations, incorporating additional sources such as gray literature and non-English publications for a more comprehensive understanding, and ensuring cautious organization and synthesis of the gathered information to maintain coherence and comprehensiveness in the review. Enhancing critical appraisal skills will enable a more thorough assessment of the quality and strength of the evidence. Furthermore, incorporating additional sources such as gray literature and non-English publications could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic (Messerschmidt et al., 2022).

Support of Project and Practice Decisions

Reviewing the literature is crucial in supporting project and practice decisions. Researchers and healthcare professionals gain access to a wealth of existing knowledge and evidence by conducting a comprehensive literature review. This enables them to understand the current research state, identify learning gaps, and build upon the existing evidence base (Li et al., 2019). The insights from the literature review inform project decisions, such as selecting appropriate interventions or designing research studies, ensuring that they are grounded in the best available evidence. Additionally, the literature review provides valuable guidance for clinical practice decisions by highlighting effective interventions, potential adverse effects, and areas requiring further investigation. It empowers healthcare professionals to make informed decisions, improve patient outcomes, and bridge the gap between research and practice (Brice & Almond, 2020).

In my project on literature search and synthesis, the literature review played a pivotal role in guiding and shaping the entire process. By conducting a comprehensive literature review, I was able to gain access to a wealth of existing knowledge and evidence related to interventions for COPD. The review enabled me to understand the current research state, identify knowledge gaps, and recognize potential areas for future research. The insights gained from the literature review not only informed the selection of relevant articles but also helped develop inclusion and exclusion criteria for the screening process. Furthermore, the review provided a deeper understanding of key themes, trends, and the impact of nutritional and telehealth interventions on lung functioning and readmission rates within a specific timeframe. It also helped recognize potential limitations and methodological considerations within the studies, allowing for critical analysis and interpretation of the evidence.

Improvement Opportunities Related to Collaboration

Reflecting on the collaboration and other relevant work at the project site, I have experienced a dynamic and engaging environment that has contributed significantly to the progress of my doctoral project. The opportunity to collaborate with fellow researchers, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders has been beneficial in expanding my perspectives and refining my ideas. Through regular meetings, discussions, and feedback sessions, I have gained valuable insights, such as effective search strategies, manual searches of reference lists, and potential challenges posed by limited sample sizes and methodological limitations. These valuable insights have enhanced my critical appraisal skills and shaped my approach to the literature search and synthesis process. Furthermore, I received constructive criticism and benefited from the team’s collective expertise (Slettebø, 2020). This collaborative atmosphere has fostered creativity, innovation, and a sense of shared purpose, ultimately enhancing the quality of my project.

The outcomes of collaboration at the project site have been significant and tangible. Working alongside experienced professionals in the field has given me access to knowledge, resources, and practical expertise. This has enriched my understanding of the subject matter and enabled me to apply theoretical concepts to real-world situations. My collaborators’ input and contributions have helped shape my project’s direction, refine research questions, and identify potential implications for practice. Through their support and guidance, I have navigated challenges, overcome obstacles, and made meaningful progress in my doctoral journey (van Leeuwen & Janssen, 2019).

As with any collaborative endeavor, there are always opportunities for improvement. One area that could benefit from further attention is fostering even stronger interdisciplinary collaboration. By actively seeking input from professionals in different fields and engaging in cross-disciplinary discussions, I can gain a broader perspective and incorporate diverse insights into my project. Additionally, enhancing communication channels and ensuring efficient information sharing within the team can lead to smoother coordination and increased productivity (Gallagher & Savage, 2020).

Preconceptions, Assumptions, Biases

One’s preconceptions, assumptions, or biases can significantly influence how they think about and approach their work. These underlying beliefs and perspectives, often formed based on personal experiences, cultural influences, or societal norms, shape the lens through which one perceives information and interprets data. While these preconceptions can provide a valuable starting point and guide initial thinking, they can also unintentionally introduce biases and limit one’s ability to consider alternative viewpoints or embrace new ideas (Matos et al., 2023). Awareness of these preconceptions and actively challenging them is essential in ensuring an open and unbiased approach to work. By critically examining our assumptions and seeking diverse perspectives, we can broaden our understanding, uncover hidden biases, and foster a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to our work. Recognizing and mitigating the influence of preconceptions, assumptions, or prejudices allows for more objective and evidence-based decision-making, leading to more robust outcomes and advancements in our field (Hernández-Sellés et al., 2019).

Support from Scholarly and Authoritative Sources

Integrating support from scholarly and authoritative sources is crucial for strengthening claims and substantiating decision-making in COPD. Research studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of nutritional and telehealth interventions in improving lung functioning and reducing readmission rates in COPD patients within a 2 to 3-month period (Jiang et al., 2023). For instance, a systematic review by Fan and Zhao (2021) found that telehealth interventions showed promising results in improving COPD management and reducing hospital readmissions. Another study by Niranjan et al. (2022) highlighted the benefits of nutritional interventions in enhancing lung function and overall well-being in COPD patients.

Moreover, authoritative sources such as clinical guidelines also provide valuable guidance for decision-making in COPD management. For example, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines recommend incorporating nutritional interventions and telehealth strategies into comprehensive COPD care (Vila et al., 2023). Additionally, a study by Furulund et al. (2021) found that nutritional interventions significantly improved lung functioning in COPD patients, providing further evidence for their effectiveness. Another study by Cristina et al. (2023) demonstrated the positive impact of telehealth interventions on reducing readmission rates in COPD patients. Furthermore, a recent study conducted by Koh et al. (2023) demonstrated the long-term benefits of telehealth interventions in improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare utilization among individuals with COPD. These guidelines serve as a reputable source of evidence-based recommendations and support the use of these interventions in clinical practice. By incorporating citations from scholarly articles and authoritative guidelines, one can strengthen the claims and decisions related to the effectiveness of nutritional and telehealth interventions in improving lung functioning and reducing readmission rates in COPD patients. These sources provide a solid evidence base and contribute to the overall credibility and validity of the project.

Evaluation of Relevance

The relevance of sources to the claims and decisions they support is crucial in ensuring the validity and reliability of the information used. One effective way to assess the relevance of sources is by applying the CRAAP and RADAR tests. The CRAAP test examines the source’s currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose, while the RADAR test focuses on the information’s relevancy, appearance, date, authority, and reason (Sye & Thompson, 2023). By evaluating these factors, one can determine the suitability of a source for supporting specific claims and decisions in the context of COPD. For example, scholarly articles published in reputable peer-reviewed journals undergo a rigorous review process, ensuring their authority and accuracy. Clinical guidelines, endorsed by expert panels and professional organizations, carry significant relevance and authority in guiding decision-making. By carefully applying these tests, one can select sources that align with the specific claims and decisions, ensuring the information used is current, accurate, reliable, and applicable to the project at hand (Sye & Thompson, 2023).

Conclusion NHS FPX 9902 Assessment 5 Reflection

Conducting a comprehensive literature search is crucial for addressing research questions and making informed decisions. By employing a systematic approach and utilizing relevant databases, researchers can gather a wide range of scholarly and authoritative sources to support their claims and substantiate their decision-making processes. Integrating support from such sources strengthens the validity and credibility of the work, ensuring that evidence-based practices and guidelines are followed.


Brice, S., & Almond, H. (2020). Health professional digital capabilities frameworks: A scoping review. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare , 13 , 1375–1390. https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.s269412

Costal, D., Farré, C., Franch, X., & Quer, C. (2021). Inclusion and exclusion criteria in software engineering tertiary studies. Proceedings of the 15th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM) . https://doi.org/10.1145/3475716.3484190

Cristina Rezende1, L., Geraldo Ribeiro1, E., Carvalho Parreiras1, L., Assunção Guimarães1, R., Maciel dos Reis1, G., Fernandes Carajá1, A., Batista Franco2, T., Patrícia de Souza Mendes1, L., Maria Augusto1, V., & Lara Silva1, K. (2023). Telehealth and telemedicine in the management of adult patients after hospitalization for COPD exacerbation: A scoping review. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia , e20220067. https://doi.org/10.36416/1806-3756/e20220067

Fan, K., & Zhao, Y. (2021). Mobile health technology: A novel tool in chronic disease management. Intelligent Medicine , 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imed.2021.06.003

Furulund, E., Bemanian, M., Berggren, N., Madebo, T., Rivedal, S. H., Lid, T. G., & Fadnes, L. T. (2021). Effects of nutritional interventions in individuals with chronic obstructive lung disease: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease , 16 , 3145–3156. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S323736

Gallagher, S. E., & Savage, T. (2020). Challenge-based learning in higher education: An exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education , 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863354

Golder, S., Peryer, G., & Loke, Y. K. (2019). Overview: Comprehensive and carefully constructed strategies are required when conducting searches for adverse effects data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 113 , 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.019

Hernández-Sellés, N., Pablo-César Muñoz-Carril, & González-Sanmamed, M. (2019). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An analysis of the relationship between interaction, emotional support and online collaborative tools. Computers & Education , 138 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.012

Jiang, Y., Nuerdawulieti, B., Chen, Z., Guo, J., Sun, P., Chen, M., & Li, J. (2023). Effectiveness of patient decision aid supported shared decision-making intervention in in-person and virtual hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation in older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare . https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633×231156631

Koh, J. H., Chong, L. C. Y., Koh, G. C. H., & Tyagi, S. (2023). Telemedical interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management: Umbrella review. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 25(1), e33185. https://doi.org/10.2196/33185

Li, J., Greenwood, D., & Kassem, M. (2019). Blockchain in the built environment and construction industry: A systematic review, conceptual models and practical use cases. Automation in Construction , 102(1), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.02.005

Matos, J. F., Piedade, J., Freitas, A., Pedro, N., Dorotea, N., Pedro, A., & Galego, C. (2023). Teaching and learning research methodologies in education: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences , 13(2), 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020173

Messerschmidt, M., Chan, S., Wen, E., & Nanayakkara, S. (2022). Toro: A Web-based tool to search, explore, screen, compare and visualize literature . AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). https://aisel.aisnet.org/sighci2022/13/

Niranjan, V., Tarantino, G., Kumar, J., Stokes, D., O’Connor, R., & O’Regan, A. (2022). The impact of dance interventions on patients with noninfectious pulmonary diseases: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 (17), 11115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191711115

Riccio, V., Jahangirova, G., Stocco, A., Humbatova, N., Weiss, M., & Tonella, P. (2020). Testing machine learning based systems: A systematic mapping. Empirical Software Engineering . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09881-0

Slettebø, T. (2020). Participant validation: Exploring a contested tool in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work , 20 (5), 147332502096818. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325020968189

Sye, D., & Thompson, D. S. (2023). Tools, tests, and checklists: The evolution and future of source evaluation frameworks. Journal of New Librarianship , 8 , 76. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/jnwlibsh8&div=11&id=&page=

van Leeuwen, A., & Janssen, J. (2019). A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Educational Research Review , 27(27), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.001

Vila, M., Rosa Oliveira, V., & Agustí, A. (2023). Telemedicine in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review. Medicina Clínica (English Edition) , 160(8), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcle.2023.01.008

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top