Reference no: EM134012824

Discussion

Response 1

Now that we are in week 4, I feel like my searches are getting stronger and I am actually making headway rather than feeling completely overwhelmed. After meeting with Nicole from the library and getting guidance, I was able to finalize my search strings for PubMed, Scopus, and Pacific Scholar and gather a substantial number of results. There are a few thousand currently, so I need to apply filters consistent with my inclusion criteria and narrow down the data that applies specifically to my project to input into my PRISMA flow counts. I also discussed doing a hand search with my research advisor so as not to miss out on important articles that may be overlooked through the broader searches. I have a spreadsheet that I am keeping a detailed log of all of my searches, databases, and search strings/terms. One thing that needs a decision is to finalize my exclusion criteria.

The writing process this trimester has forced me to be more organized, and I feel I have become accountable to myself, as well as our instructor and mentors, to stick to my schedule and get the work done and on time. In my opinion, it is as close to a formal writing group as Silvia discusses in chapter 4 that I have. My family is informal because they know I need to write on specific days, but they are not keeping track of any assignments or giving feedback, which Silvia would agree is important (Silvia, 2018, p. 51). Developing stronger writing and reporting skills has also helped me stay focused throughout the research process.

Response 2

This week, I anticipated that my project would be fully transitioned into the full-text review phase. However, I found myself feeling as though I was back at the starting line. To address these concerns, I scheduled meetings with my research advisor on May 18, 2026, and with an academic support librarian on May 19, 2026. Both discussions proved to be helpful and reassuring, providing me with renewed motivation and a clear plan for moving forward.

The academic support librarian emphasized that it is acceptable to acknowledge the overwhelming nature of this process. With their guidance, I developed a new approach for documenting exclusions. Instead of using broad categories, I now rely on specific, predefined reasons for exclusions, such as wrong population, lack of discharge-based SDOH intervention, or outcomes not tied to ED visits or readmissions. This change will make my decisions more consistent and defensible, and it aligns with the expectation of transparently reporting study selection decisions (Cherry et al., 2023).

An outstanding issue is determining how to handle studies that only partially fit the inclusion criteria, particularly those involving broader care coordination models where Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) are present but not clearly isolated. I discussed this challenge with the academic support librarian, who provided valuable feedback on incorporating these studies into my review process.

My writing accountability is gradually becoming more formalized. While my advisor is aware of my progress, the responsibility for managing my writing remains with me. Protected writing time has been beneficial, but it is not sufficient. To increase accountability and productivity, I plan to meet with the support librarian weekly and set specific weekly goals. Silvia (2018, Chapter 4) notes that writing groups foster a greater sense of accountability than scheduling alone. Effective project management and planning can further support these goals and improve consistency throughout the review process.