5. Conducting an Evidence-Based Literature Review

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

  1. Explain the purpose of a literature search.
  2. Develop a literature search strategy based on the PICO framework.
  3. Describe and Apply the PICOT approach to specific research question development for capstone projects.
  4. Identify at least two databases that can be used for a literature search.
  5. Explain the relationship between evidence-based practice and levels of evidence.
  6. Implement an information management system to facilitate critical appraisal of identified literature.


This chapter discusses the importance of the PICO framework when developing a literature search strategy.  Common databases for literature scoping are shown.  Strategies for critically appraising the literature are presented and examples of information management systems for effective literature reviews are included.  This chapter ends with some examples of information management systems that can be used or modified to facilitate a succinct and relevant literature review.


Once Phase 1 of literature scoping has been completed and a topic has been identified, and a PICO/PIO question developed it is time to begin Phase 2 of literature scoping.  The second phase of a literature review is to help you delve deeper into what evidence is available on your topic or program of interest (Burke & Dempsey, 2022).  Although literature reviews can be time consuming it is an extremely important component of a capstone project.  Literature reviews are used to describe the population or community using supporting data.  Literature reviews also begin to introduce the population or community needs or problem to substantiate a program or intervention.  Literature reviews are also used with grant proposals and Institutional Review Board (IRB applications) as a means of supporting evidence-based practice.  Once you have selected a topic and created a PIO/PICO question, literature should be reviewed for similar programs.  Exploring other programs can help you understand challenges, successes, and potential funding streams associated with program development.  Furthermore, students should be knowledgeable about what similar programs exist so as not to reinvent the wheel (Doll, 2010).

The purpose of the literature search is to identify existing published research or information in a particular area of interest.  This will assist you in clarifying your guiding question(s), and to identify whether your guiding question has been answered.  A literature review must be strategic and systematic and informed by documented strategies.  Search strategies have two major considerations: search terms and databases (Considine et al., 2017).

Developing a Search Strategy

The PIO/PICO framework (Chapter 3) should be used to develop search terms that are informed by the PIO/PICO question, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), and any other terms deemed relevant.  Alternative terms and spellings must also be considered (see Table 5.1:  Examples of Alternative Terms)

Table 5.1:  Examples of Alternative Terms

Pediatrics Paediatric
Epinephrine Adrenaline

Performing the Literature Search (Literature Sourcing)

With a solid PICO/PIO question, selection of databases begins.  Conducting a literature search involves the use of web-based search engines along with electronic research databases.  Electronic bibliographic databases collect and index publications in a focus area.   To find the correct database(s), explore what material it covers and develop knowledge of the search features within the database.  This is also a great time for you to meet with their school’s librarian,  who can help you determine the most suitable databases available (Burke & Dempsey, 2022; DeIuliis, Bednarski, Bell, & DeAngelis,  2020).

To carry out a good literature review, you need to draw it from the latest research and information.  While some books are good for providing you with a helicopter view of a topic, before the average book is written and published at least a year has passed.  Consequently, books that have been published two or three years ago more than likely contain research that is over five years old (Burke & Dempsey, 2022).  Yet each year, there are at least one million new academic articles published in peer-reviewed journals.  For this reason, the most effective way of sourcing literature is by reading and reviewing peer-reviewed journal articles.  Many peer-reviewed journal articles are accessible via open access.  Literature sourcing can be done via Google Scholar, Touro Scholar, and other open access platforms; however, they are not exhaustive.  That’s why it is useful for you to draw from some of the databases available through the library of your educational institution  (Burke & Dempsey, 2022).  (Refer to Table 5.2:  Common Databases for Literature Scoping).

Table 5.2:  Common Databases for Literature Scoping

Name Area of Focus
MEDLINE:  accessed for free via PubMed Wide range of literature, including medicine, nursing rehabilitation, allied health, dentistry, health care system and preclinical sciences
EMBASE:  subscription-based Wide range of biomedical information; European database
CINAHL:  subscription-based Nursing and allied health sources
Cochrane Library:  subscription-based Independent review of clinical effectiveness to inform decision-making in health care
Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC):  free Education-related studies
PsycINFO:  subscription-based Information from social and behavioral sciences
Google Scholar:  free Free web-based search engine that indexes citations and full-test articles
REHAB+:  free (registration required) Critical appraisals of literature pertaining to occupational and physical therapy

Source:  DeIuliis, E. D., Bednarski, J. A., Bell, A., & DeAngelis, T. (2020). 3. In The entry level Occupational Therapy Doctorate Capstone: A Framework for the experience and project (pp. 41–55). essay, SLACK Incorporated.

To find the right database(s), explore what material it covers, and become familiarized with the search features within the database.  It is best practice to search multiple databases that are relevant to your topic because different databases can yield different search results.  Furthermore, all databases will allow you to truncate terms to find different word endings and expand your results.  Note that the truncation symbol is usually the asterisk (*).  For example, nurs* will find nurses, nurse, and nursing.  The wildcard is usually a question mark symbol (?) that can be used to replace a single character in a word to find different spellings.  For example, wom?n will show results for both woman and women.  It is important to save your search strategy as this information is considered an important component of your capstone project (Considine et al., 2017).

The process that you use to search for and select literature should be organized and systematic, Although the majority of capstone projects will undergo the process of a rapid review of the literature, systematic reviews can also be completed. Rapid reviews have narrow search criteria to answer a policy or practice issue and systematic reviews have more expansive search criteria needed to answer a broader question (DeIuliis et al., 2020).

Getting and Reporting Your Search Results

Once search results are completed, the next step is for you to review all titles and abstracts and to remove duplicates.  The remaining titles and abstracts are critiqued against the PIO/PICO question and the articles can then be labeled as included, excluded, or possibilityThe full-text articles are then retrieved and read in detail for appraisal against the PIO/PICO question (Considine et al., 2017).  One system to consider using to guide the critical reading of results obtained from the literature search is the Preview, Question, Read, and Summarize (PQRS) Model (Refer to Table 5.3:  PQRS Model for Critical Reading).  At this point, additional literature scoping can be done by hand searching the reference lists of the full-text papers for secondary sources.  At the end of this process, it is imperative to have documented the literature search in a systematic fashion (Considine et al., 2017).  This will be covered in the Information Management section of this chapter.

Table 5.3:  PQRS Model for Critical Reading

Preview Acquire an overview of the article for a quick scan or abstract review.  Do the main points align with your capstone project?  Is it worth a closer read?
Question Ask questions about what you are reading.  Does the article relate to your capstone project?
Read Read the article.  Now, read the article again.  What information is in the article and how does it relate to your capstone project?  You may also want to highlight specific text within articles that are of significance to your project.  How does the article relate to your capstone project?
Summarize In addition to highlighting significant text, write notes to summarize or paraphrase what you have read.  Can you summarize how the content of the article helps support your project?

Source:  DeIuliis, E. D., Bednarski, J. A., Bell, A., & DeAngelis, T. (2020). 3. In The entry level Occupational Therapy Doctorate Capstone: A Framework for the experience and project (pp. 41–55). essay, SLACK Incorporated.

Evaluating the Literature

Once the inclusion/exclusion process of the literature is complete, the resultant articles are re-reviewed and the level, quality, relevance and strength of the evidence is critically appraised (Refer to Table 5.4:  Level, Quality, Relevance, and Strength of Evidence Checklist)

Table 5.4:  Level, Quality, Relevance, and Strength of Evidence Checklist

Level of Evidence Study design used as a measure of the degree to which bias has been eliminated by the design
Quality of Evidence The quality of the methods used by investigators to minimize bias
Relevance of Evidence This is determined by the relevance of the outcome measures used and the applicability of the project results to other treatments, settings, and patients
Strength of Evidence The magnitude and reliability of the treatment effect seen in a study.  Strong effects are more likely to be real and clinically important.  Strength of evidence takes into account the effect size, confidence interval, p value, and the exclusion of clinically unimportant effects

Source:  Considine, J., Shaban, R. Z., Fry, M., & Curtis, K. (2017). Evidence based emergency nursing: designing a research question and searching the literature. International emergency nursing32, 78-82.

Levels of Evidence:  Quantitative Studies

Levels of evidence are based on the principle that certain study types have more rigor and these higher quality study designs provide more confidence to associated clinical decision-making (Tomlin & Borgetto, 2011).  It is important to note that in many areas of health, it is difficult to attain high-level evidence.  Consequently, the focus should be on determining the highest available level of evidence (Refer to Table 5.5:  Levels of Evidence)

Table 5.5:  Levels of Evidence

Level I Systematic reviews, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials (RCT)
Level II Two groups, non-randomized studies (for example, cohort, case control)
Level III One group, non-randomized (before and after; pre- and post-test)
Level IV Descriptive studies that include analysis of outcomes (case study, single subject)
Level V Case reports and expert opinion that includes narrative literature reviews and consensus statements

Source:  DeIuliis, E. D., Bednarski, J. A., Bell, A., & DeAngelis, T. (2020). 3. In The entry level Occupational Therapy Doctorate Capstone: A Framework for the experience and project (pp. 41–55). essay, SLACK Incorporated.

The levels of evidence are an important component of evidence-based practice (EBP) .  Understanding the levels and why they are assigned to publications can help you prioritize information.  With that being said, not all Level IV or V evidence should be ignored nor all Level I be accepted as fact.  The levels of evidence table within this chapter (Table 5.5) can be used as a guide; however, you will still need to be cautious when interpreting results (Burns, Rohrich, & Chung, 2011).

Information Management (CAPs Matrix, COREQ)

Developing an effective strategy for managing information before you begin to engage with the literature is vital.  Using reference manager software or developing an information management system will help to enable efficient saving and sorting of references.  There are several techniques that can be used for information management that we will review; however, it is important to discuss information management with your capstone course instructors and mentors to ensure you are meeting specific course and program requirements.  It should also be noted that any information management system used can be modified to meet your and/or individual program needs and requirements.

Microsoft Excel Note-Taking Spreadsheet

A simple technique for managing information is to create a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet comprised of information you require for your literature review (Refer to Table 5.6:  Example of Note-Taking Spreadsheet for Literature Review).

Table 5.6:  Example of Note-Taking Spreadsheet for Literature Review

Citation Key Findings Comments
Journal Article #1
Journal Article #2
Book #1

Critically Appraised Paper (CAP)

A CAP is an at-a-glance summary of the method, findings, study limitations, and clinical implications of a selective quantitative or qualitative-based article. Critically Appraised Papers are used to provide a detailed appraisal of an individual study to determine its value and relevance to a capstone project.   Each article would have its own CAP and each CAP would be numbered (Refer to Appendix 5.A:  Sample Critically Appraised Paper (CAP).

Matrix Tables

Using a review matrix enables you to quickly compare and contrast articles in order to determine the scope of research across time. A review matrix can be used for quantitative or qualitative studies and can help you easily spot differences and similarities between journal articles about a given research topic. Review matrixes are especially helpful for health sciences literature reviews covering the complete scope of a research topic over time. Matrix tables expand both horizontally and vertically, with the number of rows and columns being determined by the number of unique values in the specific fields (Refer to Appendix 5.B:  Sample Matrix Table).

Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) Checklist

For qualitative research, you can also use the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies Checklist (COREQ) for reporting purposes.  The COREQ is a 32-item checklist developed to promote explicit and comprehensive reporting of interviews and focus groups   It is important that you include sufficient detail on the methods of data analysis and the relationship between the analysis and their findings in this research report so reviewers can assess the rigor of the research analysis and the credibility of research findings (Booth, Hannes, Harden, Noyes, Harris & Tong, 2014).  (Refer to Appendix 5.C:  Sample COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research Checklist).

Citing Sources

Once you have consulted the literature and are ready to synthesize your information, be sure to adequately give credit to original authors by citing appropriately.  You must cite the source every time you incorporate research, words, ideas, data, or information that is not your own.  Typically, citations consist of standard elements and contain the information necessary to identify and track down publications.  Citations may look different, depending on what is being cited and which style is used to create them.  Plagiarism occurs when you borrow another’s words or ideas and do not acknowledge that you have done so.  The best way to avoid plagiarism is to cite your sources, both within the body of your paper and also within the bibliography of sources, or reference page.  It is important for you to discuss citation style and requirements with your program and capstone instructors to ensure you are citing your sources according to program and course policies (Boston University School of Public Health, 2021).  It should also be noted that there are a number of citation management tools that can help you organize your references such as RefWorks and Zotero.  Your educational institution’s library can provide you with more guidance with citation management tools available to students.


To understand the importance and relevance of available literature, you must locate, identify, and analyze available literature that supports your topic.  Using a systematic process for literature scoping and information management is essential to the literature review process.  Level of evidence interpretation can also help you effectively critically appraise the evidence and report on your findings.

Case Study:  Conducting a Literature Review

Glynn began the second phase of their literature review, a systematic and thorough literature search to locate the most current research supporting their capstone project.  Glynn met with her school’s librarians via Zoom meetings and subsequently used the databases subscribed to by their educational institution and Google Scholar.  Science Direct, CABI, The Embase, The Cochrane Library, and ERIC were included to investigate articles published in any country and written in English over a ten-year lookback.  Keywords and phrases that were used to perform effective database searches included health literacy, functional health literacy, low health literacy, health literacy and chronic disease, health literacy curricula for health care professionals, occupational therapy and low health literature patients, health literacy education, health literacy universal precautions, low health literacy and older adults in rehabilitation settings, and health literacy and community-dwelling adults.   

 A systematic database review by title and keywords resulted in 57 articles that were further reviewed and scrutinized in their entirety to determine their relevance to the capstone project.  After a thorough analysis of these articles, 21 studies were chosen for Glynn’s Critically Appraised Topic (CAT) portfolio.

Inclusion criteria for Glynn’s CAT portfolio included topics that:

  • Clearly described a health literacy intervention that was developed or adapted for health care professionals or students enrolled in an accredited health care program
  • Utilized a validated measure of health literacy for patients, such as the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM)
  • Included measurements of participants; self-perceived ability to identify, assess, and provide client-centered interventions for patients identified as low health literature using questionnaires, pre-post workshop surveys, or pre-post workshop quizzes regarding knowledge of health literacy
  • Provided a description of effective, evidence-based educational tools and strategies that can be included in health literacy curricula for health care professionals
  • Addressed the importance of health literacy and integrating health literacy initiatives into health care practice
  • Described the impact of low health literacy and patient outcomes for older adults

Exclusion criteria for Glynn’s CAT portfolio included:

  • Literacy plans not related to functional health literacy initiatives for health care professionals
  • Literature lacking in an evidence-based practice approach

According to Glynn’s educational program and capstone course policies and procedures, these 21 articles became part of their Critically Appraised Topic Portfolio and a critically appraised resource template, provided by her educational institution and capstone instructors.  A critically appraised resource template was completed for each article.  Each critically appraised resource was numbered, and levels of evidence were reported according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Standard Levels of Evidence (Refer to Appendix 5.D:  Glynn’s Critically Appraised Resource #1).

Glynn further reviewed these 21- articles and the following common themes were identified:

  • Defining health literacy
  • Health literacy universal precautions
  • Health literacy curriculum for health care professionals
  • Identifying and assessing low-health literate patients
  • Strategies to develop patient-friendly reading materials and forms
  • Strategies to improve provider/low-health literate patient communication

Glynn consulted with her capstone instructors and will be using APA Style, 6th edition to cite sources within their capstone project.

Refer to Appendix 5.D:  Glynn’s Critically Appraised Resource #1

Appendix 5.A:  Sample Critically Appraised Paper (CAP) Template

CRITICALLY APPRAISED PAPER #1 (you will number each resource)

List PIO/PICO Question Here or your health promotion program idea (on everyone)

Name of Article and source:

Put APA Formatted Citation Here-don’t forget hanging indent and double spacing

Purpose of the Study Clearly state the results in layman’s terms. (Do not copy statistics from the study)


Were results statistically significant and/or clinically significant?  If so, what does this mean in layman’s terms?

Setting Examples: inpatient rehab unit, SNF , public school system, drug and alcohol clinic, community senior housing complexes, etc.  Be sure to include the geographic location (for example, US, Australia, rural/urban, etc. if this info is available) For SR ’s, include a summary of the types of settings of reviewed studies.
Subjects/Sample Include any info that is available regarding number of subjects, diagnoses, how they were recruited, was the sample random , convenience, purposive, and any other pertinent demographics.  For systematic reviews, this is the number of studies reviewed and their designs, as well as a general review of subjects in those studies.
Study Design/Methodology What type of research design was used? Examples: systematic review, randomized control trial (RCT) , cohort, single case design, ethnography, grounded theory, etc.

Briefly summarize the methodology (in other words what did the researchers do?)

Level of Evidence I, II, III, IV, or V or Qualitative
Data Collection Tools/Measures List the data collection tools/measure(s) used. This is not the NOT statistics used-these are the assessments/outcome measures/tools used.

Are these measures valid and reliable? Were they created by the authors?  Were they piloted?  You may need to look beyond the article to find this information out.


For a systematic review (SR), how were the studies assessed for quality?

Results/Main Findings Clearly state the results in layman’s terms. (Do not copy statistics from the study)


Were results statistically significant and/or clinically significant?  If so, what does this mean in layman’s terms?

Limitations List any limitations in the study that need considered when evaluating results. Look beyond limitations noted in the article, where applicable
How Useful is the Study to Your Project? (Check off all that apply) ☐Provides background info

☐Study uses the same/similar Population to your proposed project

☐DIRECTLY supports the Proposed Intervention (shows effectiveness of the intervention for desired/similar outcome)

☐INDIRECTLY supports Intervention (supports smaller aspects of the intervention—content, structure, etc.)

This study was identified as the ‘best’ evidence and can be applied to your proposed EBP project in these SPECIFIC ways: Use bullet points to clearly, concisely, & SPECIFICALLY explain how you will use this study in designing your EBP project.


Keep in mind that you can glean valuable information from ALL studies regardless of whether or not the results are positive.  For example, say you are looking at fall prevention & you believe that use of appropriate footwear can decrease the risk of falls.  Then you locate a study that reports this is not true.  It would still be important to include this study—remember that “best” evidence combines the research with your skills/knowledge & the needs of your client/population.  You would also have to consider how applicable this study is to what you are proposing.

The information in the boxes to the RIGHT in the table has been provided for explanation purposes.  You should delete this information and use this template for each resource.



Appendix 5.B:  Sample Matrix Table
Author Year Published Purpose Level of Evidence Research Design Number of Subjects Data Collection Tools(s) Comments
Appendix 5.C:  Sample COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research Checklist). 
List PIO/PICO Question Here or your health promotion program idea (on every page).                                                                              Name of Article and source:                                                                                                                                                                                                    Put APA Formatted Citation Here-don’t forget hanging indent and double spacing. 
Topic Item Number Guide Questions/Description Reported on Page #:
Domain #1:  Research Team and Reflexivity
Personal Characteristics
Interviewer/Facilitator 1 Which author(s) conducted the interview or focus group?
Credentials 2 What were the researcher’s  credentials?  e.g., PhD, OTD
Occupation 3 What was their occupation at the time of the study?
Gender 4 Was the researcher male or female?
Experience and Training 5 What experience or training did the research have?
Relationship with Participant
Relationship Established 6 Was a relationship established prior to study commencement?
Participant Knowledge of the Interviewer 7 What did the participants now about the researcher?  e.g., personal goals, reasons for doing research
Interviewer Characteristics 8 What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/facilitator?  e.g., Bias, assumptions, reasons, and interests in the research topic
Domain #2:  Study Design
Theoretical Framework
Methodological orientation and Theory 9 What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study?  e.g., grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis
Participant Selection
Sampling 10 How were the participants selected?  e.g., purposive, convenience, consecutive
Method of Approach 11 How were participants approached?  e.g., face-to-face, telephone, mail, email
Sample Size 12 How many participants were in the study?
Non-Participation 13 How many people refused to participate or dropped out?  Reasons?
Setting of Data Collection 14 Where was the data collected?  e.g., home, clinic, workplace
Presence of non-participants 15 Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers?
Description of Sample 16 What are the important characteristics of the sample?  e.g., demographic data, date
Data Collection
Interview Guide 17 Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors?  Was it pilot tested?
Repeat Interviews 18 Were repeat interviews carried out?  If yes, how many?
Audio/Visual Recordings 19 Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data?
Field Notes 20 Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group?
Duration 21 What was the duration of the interview or focus group?
Data Saturation 22 Was data saturation discussed?
Transcripts Returned 23 Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction?
Domain 3:  Analysis and Findings
Data Analysis
Number of Data Coders 24 How many data coders coded the data?
Description of the Coding Themes 25 Did authors provide a description of the coding tree?
Derivation of themes 26 Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data?
Software 27 What software, if application, was used to manage the data?
Participant Checking 28 Did participants provide feedback on the findings?
Quotations Present 29 Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings?  Was each quotation identified?  e.g., participant number
Data and findings consistent 30 Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings?
Clarity of Major Themes 31 Were major themes clearly presented in the findings?
Clarity of Minor Themes 32 Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes?

Source:  Tong, A., Sainsbury, P & Craig J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ):  a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.  International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349-357.


Appendix 5.D:  Glynn’s Critically Appraised Resource #1
Does a (I) health literacy workshop for (P) occupational therapists that incorporates elements of the Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit (O) improve their working knowledge about health literacy, and increase their self-perceived ability to identify, assess, and implement client-centered interventions that optimize outcomes for low-health literate patients? Schepens-Niemiec, S.L., Carlson, M., Martinez, J., Guzman, L., Manahan, A. & Clark, F. (2015). Developing occupation-based preventative programs for late-middle aged Latino  patients in safety-net health systems. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 6906240010p1-6906240010p11.https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.015958 
Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to develop a foundational schema for the design of health promotion programs that could be implemented by OT practitioners for late-middle-aged Latino patients in safety-net health systems
Setting Interviews were conducted individually, in a quiet place,  either the participants’ homes or a location of their choice.
  • Persons of Latino race/ethnicity, 50-60 years of age
  • English or Spanish speaking
  • Active patrons of Los Angeles County Department of Health Services Primary Care Institution:  El Monte, Edward R. Roybal, or H. Claude Hudson Comprehensive Health Centers
  • Persons who received safety-net primary care through LaC-DHS with a family income lower than 133.33% of the federal poverty level
  • Six Latino men and five Latina women with an average age of 56
Study Design/Methodology
  • This is a qualitative study design
  • Each participant was interviewed twice
  • Seven participants completed the interviews in Spanish
  • Each participant had at least one chronic condition
  • Interviewers had no relationship with subjects
Level of Evidence This is a Level IV evidence-based study
Data Collection Tools/Measures
  • Researchers developed a semi-structured interview guide that was administrated by a trained, bilingual Latino OT
  • Researchers performed an inductive content analysis of qualitative data to identify patterns and regularities in subject responses
  • Researchers sorted and categorized established codes into meaningful clusters
  • Codes and categories were adjusted to accommodate new information
  • Researchers compared interview content across the sample to determine commonalities, disagreements, and focal points necessary to construct a typology of subject-identified health strategies
Results/Main Findings
  • Identified domains included weight management, disease management, mental health and well-being, personal finances, family, friends and community, and stress management
  • Identified domains and strategies are illustrated in Table 2 in article
  • The qualitative methodology and the non-random sample of late middle-aged Latinos who were targeted for this study makes findings not generalizable to other late middle-aged populations
  • This was a convenience sample
  • Participants may have incorrectly identified strategies that do not promote health
  • The translation and transcription process of this study may have influenced or altered participants responses
How Useful is the Study to Your Project? (Check off all that apply) ☒ Background

☒ Population

☐ DIRECTLY supports Intervention (shows effectiveness)

☐ INDIRECTLY supports Intervention

☐ Assessment/Evaluation

This study was identified as the ‘best’ evidence and can be applied to your proposed EBP project in these SPECIFIC ways:
  • The most important finding in the study is the extent to which participants viewed everyday occupations as key to their health and well-being
  • The scheme generated from this study can be used by occupational therapists as a foundation for designing client-centered occupational therapy health promotion interventions with a number of patient populations
  • Results of this study indicate that occupational therapy health promotion interventions are beneficial for their patients





Share This Book