Applied Sciences Literature Review Assignment

Minicaa
Home>Homework Answsers>Applied Sciences homework help
healthcare

It is due tmr before 11:59 CST. Please let me know if any questions or concerns. FOLLOW ALL DIRECTIONS PLEASE

  • a month ago
  • 24
Report issue
files (3)

LiteratureReviewAssignment.docx

Identify a barrier or issue in health care that you want to address through your capstone project paper (Reduction of healthcare workers' burnout in a hospital environment by improving workload balance. Perform a literature review on the barrier or issue using the GCU Library. Present 8-10 peer-reviewed primary research articles . These articles should be either qualitative or quantitative.

Literature Evaluation table attached separately

Here are some articles, that my professor prefers me include:

Articles:

Li, L. Z., Yang, P., Singer, S. J., Pfeffer, J., Mathur, M. B., & Shanafelt, T. (2024). Nurse Burnout and Patient Safety, Satisfaction, and Quality of Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.  JAMA Network Open,  7(11), e2443059.  https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43059

Hernandez, I., Söderström, M., Rudman, A., & Dahlgren, A. (2024).  Under pressure—Nursing staff’s perspectives on working hours and recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.  International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 7, 100225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100225 ( pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Panagioti, M., Panagopoulou, E., Bower, P., et al. (2023). Controlled interventions to reduce burnout in physicians: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  JAMA Network Open, 6(2), e2254745.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54745

Rotenstein, L. S., Torre, M., Ramos, M. A., et al. (2021). Prevalence of burnout among physicians: A systematic review.  JAMA, 326(11), 1131–1150.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1337

Brooks Carthon, J. M., Hatfield, L., Brom, H., Houton, M., Kelly-Hellyer, E., Schlak, A., Aiken, L. H., & Sloane, D. M. (2021). System-level improvements in work environments lead to lower nurse burnout and higher patient satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 36(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000475

Willard-Grace, R., Knox, M., Huang, B., Hammer, H., Kivlahan, C., & Grumbach, K. (2019). Burnout and health care workforce turnover. Annals of Family Medicine, 17(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2338

Jessie Childs, Catherine Cohen, Silvia Pignata, Eva Bezak, & Mark Tie. (2023). Workplace interventions to improve well-being and reduce burnout for nurses, physicians and allied healthcare professionals: a systematic review.  BMJ Open,  13(6). https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071203

Mohammad S. Razai, Pavan Kooner, & Azeem Majeed. (2023). Strategies and Interventions to Improve Healthcare Professionals’ Well-Being and Reduce Burnout.  Journal of Primary Care & Community Health,  14. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/21501319231178641

You may use either health care or nursing peer-reviewed journals; however, at least half of the primary articles must come from peer-reviewed nursing journals. The peer-reviewed articles must consist of research published within the last 5 years.

Use the "HLT-494 - Literature Evaluation Table" template to document your detailed assessment of each primary study. This document helps break down the components of each article to ensure the article meets the requirements for a professional nursing paper. Ensure that each of your articles provides information that meets each criterion listed. Assess the research and provide a detailed and clear explanation how each article supports your capstone project and evidence-based practice (between five and six sentences).

Rubric-LiteratureEvaluationTable.pdf

5/30/26, 12:26 PM

Page 1 of 2about:srcdoc

Literature Evaluation Table - Rubric Total 50 points

Criterion 1. Unsatisfactory 2. Less Than Satisfactory

3. Satisfactory 4. Good 5. Excellent

Summary of Health Care

Administration Issue

Summary of Health Care

Administration Issue

0 points

The summary of the health

care administration issue is

not present.

1.63 points

The summary of the health

care administration issue is

present but lacks detail or

is incomplete.

1.88 points

The summary of the health

care administration issue is

present.

2.13 points

The summary of the health

care administration issue is

detailed.

2.5 points

The summary of the health

care administration issue is

thorough.

Description of How

Article Relates to Health

Care Barrier

Description of How Article

Relates to Health Care

Barrier

0 points

The description of how

each article relates to the

health care barrier is not

present.

3.25 points

The description of how

each article relates to the

health care barrier is

present but lacks detail or

is incomplete.

3.75 points

The description of how

each article relates to the

health care barrier is

present.

4.25 points

The description of how

each article relates to the

health care barrier is

detailed.

5 points

The description of how

each article relates to the

health care barrier is

thorough.

Explanation of Articles as

Quantitative or

Qualitative

Explanation of Articles as

Quantitative or Qualitative

0 points

The explanation of whether

each article is quantitative

or qualitative is not

present.

3.25 points

The explanation of whether

each article is quantitative

or qualitative is present

but lacks detail or is

incomplete.

3.75 points

The explanation of whether

each article is quantitative

or qualitative is present.

4.25 points

The explanation of whether

each article is quantitative

or qualitative is detailed.

5 points

The explanation of whether

each article is quantitative

or qualitative is thorough.

Purpose Statement

Purpose Statement

0 points

The description of the

purpose for each article is

not present.

1.63 points

The description of the

purpose for each article is

present but lacks detail or

is incomplete.

1.88 points

The description of the

purpose for each article is

present.

2.13 points

The description of the

purpose for each article is

detailed.

2.5 points

The description of the

purpose for each article is

thorough.

Research Question

Research Question

0 points

The description of the

research question for each

article is not present.

1.63 points

The description of the

research question for each

article is present but lacks

detail or is incomplete.

1.88 points

The description of the

research question for each

article is present.

2.13 points

The description of the

research question for each

article is detailed.

2.5 points

The description of the

research question for each

article is thorough.

Explanation of Outcomes

Explanation of Outcomes

0 points

The explanation of

outcomes for each article is

not present.

3.25 points

The explanation of

outcomes for each article is

present but lacks detail or

is incomplete.

3.75 points

The explanation of

outcomes for each article is

present.

4.25 points

The explanation of

outcomes for each article is

detailed.

5 points

The explanation of

outcomes for each article is

thorough.

Description of Setting

Description of Setting

0 points

The description of the

setting for each article is

not present.

1.63 points

The description of the

setting for each article is

present but lacks detail or

is incomplete.

1.88 points

The description of the

setting for each article is

present.

2.13 points

The description of the

setting for each article is

detailed.

2.5 points

The description of the

setting for each article is

thorough.

Sample and Method

Sample and Method

0 points

The description of the

sample and method used

in each article is not

present.

3.25 points

The description of the

sample and method used

in each article is present

but lacks detail or is

incomplete.

3.75 points

The description of the

sample and method used

in each article is present.

4.25 points

The description of the

sample and method used

in each article is detailed.

5 points

The description of the

sample and method used

in each article is thorough.

Key Findings and

Recommendations of

Researcher

Key Findings and

0 points

The description of key

findings and

recommendations of the

3.25 points

The description of key

findings and

recommendations of the

3.75 points

The description of key

findings and

recommendations of the

4.25 points

The description of key

findings and

recommendations of the

5 points

The description of key

findings and

recommendations of the

5/30/26, 12:26 PM

Page 2 of 2about:srcdoc

Recommendations of

Researcher

researcher for each article

is not present.

researcher for each article

is present but lacks detail

or is incomplete.

researcher for each article

is present.

researcher for each article

is detailed.

researcher for each article

is thorough.

Thesis Development and

Purpose

Thesis Development and

Purpose

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible

overall purpose or

organizing claim.

2.28 points

Thesis is insufficiently

developed or vague.

Purpose is not clear.

2.63 points

Thesis is apparent and

appropriate to purpose.

2.98 points

Thesis is clear and

forecasts the development

of the paper. Thesis is

descriptive and reflective

of the arguments and

appropriate to the

purpose.

3.5 points

Thesis is comprehensive

and contains the essence

of the paper. Thesis

statement makes the

purpose of the paper clear.

Argument Logic and

Construction

Argument Logic and

Construction

0 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.

2.6 points

Sufficient justification of

claims is lacking. Argument

lacks consistent unity.

There are obvious flaws in

the logic. Some sources

have questionable

credibility.

3 points

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.

3.4 points

Argument shows logical

progression. Techniques of

argumentation are evident.

There is a smooth

progression of claims from

introduction to conclusion.

Most sources are

authoritative.

4 points

Clear and convincing

argument presents a

persuasive claim in a

distinctive and compelling

manner. All sources are

authoritative.

Mechanics of Writing

Includes spelling,

punctuation, grammar,

language use.

0 points

Surface errors are

pervasive enough that they

impede communication of

meaning. Inappropriate

word choice or sentence

construction is used.

1.63 points

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.

1.88 points

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.

2.13 points

Prose is largely free of

mechanical errors,

although a few may be

present. The writer uses a

variety of effective

sentence structures and

figures of speech.

2.5 points

Writer is clearly in

command of standard,

written, academic English.

Paper Format

Use of appropriate style for

the major and assignment.

0 points

Template is not used

appropriately, or

documentation format is

rarely followed correctly.

1.63 points

Appropriate template is

used, but some elements

are missing or mistaken. A

lack of control with

formatting is apparent.

1.88 points

Appropriate template is

used. Formatting is correct,

although some minor

errors may be present.

2.13 points

Appropriate template is

fully used. There are

virtually no errors in

formatting style.

2.5 points

All format elements are

correct.

Documentation of

Sources

Citations, footnotes,

references, bibliography,

etc., as appropriate to

assignment and style.

0 points

Sources are not

documented.

1.63 points

Documentation of sources

is inconsistent or incorrect,

as appropriate to

assignment and style, with

numerous formatting

errors.

1.88 points

Sources are documented,

as appropriate to

assignment and style,

although some formatting

errors may be present.

2.13 points

Sources are documented,

as appropriate to

assignment and style, and

format is mostly correct.

2.5 points

Sources are completely

and correctly documented,

as appropriate to

assignment and style, and

format is free of error.

© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx
This file is too large to display.View in new window