Details have been modified to protect client confidentiality. This case study represents a composite of common research scenarios encountered by Research Gold.
A PhD systematic review case study demonstrating how professional support helped a doctoral candidate complete her thesis review chapter. Ms. C., a nursing PhD candidate studying the experiences of family caregivers in pediatric palliative care, was 18 months into her program with no systematic review chapter complete. Her committee had given a 5-month deadline to submit the review chapter or face a formal progress review.
The Challenge: 18 Months In, Zero Progress on the Review
Ms. C.'s situation was not unusual. Her nursing PhD program required a systematic review as Chapter 2 of her dissertation, but the program provided only a single 2-hour lecture on evidence synthesis methodology. She had attempted to start the review twice, each time becoming overwhelmed by the volume of literature, uncertain about the appropriate methodology, and unsure how to synthesize qualitative findings.
Her research question was inherently qualitative: "What are the experiences, needs, and coping strategies of family caregivers providing palliative care to children in home settings?" This question was not suited to a traditional systematic review with meta-analysis. Instead, a scoping review using JBI methodology was the appropriate approach, but Ms. C. had never heard of JBI methodology or PRISMA-ScR reporting.
Additionally, her committee members had different expectations. One expected a traditional systematic review with quality assessment. Another expected a narrative review. A third wanted a mixed-methods synthesis. Without a clear methodological framework, Ms. C. was paralyzed.
Week 1-2: Methodology Selection and Protocol Development
The first task was resolving the methodology confusion. After reviewing Ms. C.'s research question, the recommendation was clear: a JBI scoping review was the appropriate method for mapping the experiences, needs, and coping strategies literature without assessing individual study quality (which scoping reviews do not do).
A detailed justification was prepared for the committee explaining:
- Why a scoping review, not a systematic review, was appropriate (comparison guide)
- The JBI methodology framework and its acceptance in nursing research
- That scoping reviews do not include quality assessment by design, addressing the committee member's concern
- The PRISMA-ScR reporting checklist that would ensure transparent reporting
The PCC framework (Population, Concept, Context) structured the question:
- Population: Family caregivers of children receiving palliative care
- Concept: Experiences, needs, coping strategies, and support utilization
- Context: Home-based care settings in any country
The protocol was documented using our PICO/PCC framework builder and shared with the committee for approval before proceeding.
Week 3-4: Literature Search
The search strategy was developed for six databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL (essential for nursing research), PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Social Work Abstracts. Grey literature searches included ProQuest Dissertations, Google Scholar (first 200 results), and relevant organizational websites (Together for Short Lives, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization).
The search followed JBI's recommended three-step approach:
- Initial limited search of PubMed and CINAHL to identify key terms and index terms
- Comprehensive search across all six databases using identified terms
- Reference list searching of all included sources
Results:
- Total records across databases: 3,892
- After deduplication: 1,432 unique records