China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Embedding research on public health and housing into practice
Published in Jill Stewart, Russell Moffatt, Regulating the Privately Rented Housing Sector, 2022
Matt Egan, Chiara Rinaldi, Jakob Petersen, Maureen Seguin, Dalya Marks
Research into housing and health exemplified this ‘evidence gap’. In 2001, Thomson and colleagues (2001) published the first of their systematic reviews into the health effects of housing improvement. Systematic reviews are a useful way of understanding the evidence for a particular issue because these reviews aim to be comprehensive and emphasise the findings of more methodologically sound studies. Despite conducting an international search for housing improvement studies published over the previous 100+ years, Thompson and colleagues were surprised to find only eleven relevant studies – of variable quality – with inconsistent findings about health outcomes. At that time, this paucity of evidence seemed barely believable. After all, the links between housing and health had been a cornerstone public health for more than a century – to the extent that early UK government health ministries had often included housing within their remit. Surely, there must be evidence that housing improvement leads to health improvement!
When does published literature constitute data for secondary research and how should the data be analysed?
Published in Emmanuel Manu, Julius Akotia, Secondary Research Methods in the Built Environment, 2021
Bibliometric reviews or analysis and meta-analysis are systematic reviews that utilise more quantitative approaches. Bibliometric reviews are based on statistical analysis of the bibliographic data in published literature, and their application in built environment research has been on the ascendancy in recent years. Meta-analysis is a systematic review that is used to combine the results of prior quantitative analysis so that these can be analysed further at a higher analytical level. Some of these methods are discussed more extensively in other chapters of this book (see Chapters 9–13 for bibliometric approaches and Chapter 15 for an application of meta-analysis). In the rest of this chapter, the systematic literature review method is discussed in more detail, based on which the approaches for analysing the published literature qualitatively, as secondary data are discussed.
Pre-Writing Step
Published in Marialuisa Aliotta, Mastering Academic Writing in the Sciences, 2018
A traditional (or narrative) review is probably the most common type. It provides a summary of a selected body of literature as a comprehensive background on a current research topic. A systematic review, by contrast, provides a rigorous and well-defined approach to review all literature in a given subject area. A meta-analysis review represents a statistical analysis on a large body of quantitative finding; whereas a meta-synthesis consists in a non-statistical analysis to integrate, evaluate, and interpret findings from qualitative studies. Typically, reviews in scientific subjects will be of the first type, with the others being more often used in social sciences and policy making. It is important that you identify the type of review you are going to write, as this will also frame the extent of your searching. If you are unsure, discuss things with your supervisor(s) or find out what is typical in your own discipline.
Integrated approaches for logistics network planning: a systematic literature review
Published in International Journal of Production Research, 2022
Aura Maria Jalal, Eli Angela Vitor Toso, Reinaldo Morabito
In recent years, several authors have addressed different problems proposing models and solution methods to support decision-making in LNP considering the integration of different hierarchical levels (Manzini et al. 2008). In this context, our objective is to develop a systematic literature review focusing on two main questions from a broader perspective: (i) how did the authors integrate designing, planning, and operations decisions in logistics networks under a dynamic and uncertain environment, and (ii) what are the research gaps and opportunities in this area? To address these research questions, we developed a systematic review based on the protocol-driven methodology proposed by Denyer and Tranfield (2009). A systematic review enables us to identify relevant studies, evaluate their contributions, and summarise their results.
Review of Prediction Analytics Studies on Readmission for the Chronic Conditions of CHF and COPD: Utilizing the PRISMA Method
Published in Information Systems Management, 2021
A systematic review was conducted to detect the factors associated with predicting CHF and COPD readmission using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al., 2009). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become very important in health care (Oxman et al., 1994). According to Moher et al. (2009), “A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies”. (Moher et al., 2009, p. 1).
A systematic mapping study of process mining
Published in Enterprise Information Systems, 2018
Ana Rocío Cárdenas Maita, Lucas Corrêa Martins, Carlos Ramón López Paz, Laura Rafferty, Patrick C. K. Hung, Sarajane Marques Peres, Marcelo Fantinato
Likewise for systematic mappings, systematic literature studies can be conducted in the form of a systematic literature review (or only systematic review). In fact, a systematic mapping is one of the systematic review types. Whereas a systematic review is intended to go deeper in the analysis of each identified primary study at a low level of granularity, a systematic mapping is a scoping study, i.e., ‘a broad review of primary studies in a specific topic area that aims to identify what evidence is available on the topic’ (Kitchenham 2007). A systematic mapping is preferred over a systematic review when the topic is very broad. ‘A systematic mapping study allows the evidence in a domain to be plotted at a high level of granularity; this allows for the identification of evidence clusters and evidence deserts to direct the focus of future systematic reviews and to identify areas for more primary studies to be conducted’ (Kitchenham 2007).