9 NFQ Generating Evidence for Practice Assessment 2 Brief 2026 | RCSI

Generating Evidence for Practice 2 Assessment Brief 

Please note that all assignments submitted must be the original work of the student and have not been submitted previously for a different programme of study.

** The first page should contain the question, followed by a table of contents on page two and list of abbreviations. Then the abstract should appear. Please use the guidelines below.

Abstract

• This should be 300 words in length.
• The abstract must be written in a language that could be understood by an informed layperson.
• The abstract should not contain abbreviations or detailed statistics.
• The abstract must address the following (you can use these as abstract sub-headings);
  • Question – state the question
  • Background – state why this review was needed
  • Design – write ‘Systematic Review’ here
  • Data Sources – name the search engines you used and how many papers you arrived at, also include search dates
  • Review Methods – clarify if a meta-analysis, narrative or qualitative approach was undertaken in the review

• Results – outline the key results
• Conclusion – write a sentence or two with concluding points about the implications of your review.

Introduction

• This can be a brief section starting with you re-stating the question and then just outlining the main parts of the review

Aim

• State what the overarching aim of your review was
• State the components of the PICO/PEO question you have used
• Make sure everything you write here aligns with the overarching question set out at the start

Methods

You need to concisely describe (approx. 400 words) the methods you employed for the review. Use these headings:

• Search Strategy – clearly name the search engines you searched, the key words you used and inclusion/exclusion criteria. You should include evidence of your search across the different search engines in your appendices
• Data Collection and Data Extraction – write about the data extraction table you used and the types of data you collected from each selected paper. The fully populated data extraction table should be in the results section
• Data Analysis – write about the methods you used to analyse data be that a meta-analysis, narrative or qualitative approach
• Quality Appraisal – write about the tool you used to measure the quality and certainty of the papers you selected

Results

This should be an extensive section. Please address the following.

• Present a PRISMA flow diagram of the results of the search, with accurate numbers for each part. A narrative should accompany this, with you describing how you moved from an initial large number of hits, through to the selection of a discrete number of papers for use in the review. Also have a table with excluded papers.
• Present a narrative overview of the included studies in terms of:
  • Geographical Location – present a description of the countries within which the selected studies took place
  • Participants & sample size – write an overview of the different sample sizes in each selected paper
  • Study designs – write about the research designs used in each selected paper o Interventions & Follow Up – if applicable write about the interventions and follow up in each selected paper

• Present the results for your primary and secondary outcomes – this is a crucial part of the review and one where you present the results for each individual outcome. You may present your results using a meta-analysis and/or narrative analysis. In some case you may present a qualitative results section
• Outline the outcomes of the quality appraisal – this is a very important part of the review. In this part you must describe the results of your quality appraisal using a recognised quality appraisal tool

Discussion

• You should include a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the evidence and what the generalisability of the outcomes might be
• You should address implications for practice, education, research and policy

Conclusion

• You should outline what meaning can be taken from the outcomes of the review
• If there is a key message for practice/research/education/management, this should be outlined
• If the review has identified limited understanding or significant quality issues, then you should make recommendations for future approaches to research in this field

References

The reference list should include all the references cited in the review.

Appendices

This will be extensive and should include all the evidence that supported the completion of the review.