TABLE OF CONTENT. Project Overview 3. Capstone Project. 3 Types of DNP Projects 3 Documentation of Student Progress 4 Capstone Project Steps 4

DOCTOR OF NURSING PRACTICE CAPSTONE TOOLKIT

TABLE OF CONTENT Project Overview 3 Capstone Project. 3 Types of DNP Projects 3 Documentation of Student Progress 4 Capstone Project Steps 4 Scientific Review Panel.. 6 Guidelines for the DNP Proposal Hearing 8 Oral Defense Guidelines.. 8 Timelines for Project Completion.. 9 Timelines for DNP Capstone Project and Graduation. 10 Doctoral Committee Guidelines... 10 Procedure: Establish Doctoral Committee Chair and Members. 11 Procedure: Request to Change Doctoral Committee.. 12 DNP Capstone Project Proposal 12 Procedure: DNP Capstone Project Proposal Approval... 12 Procedure: Capstone Project Approval... 14 IRB for the Protection of Human Subjects.. 15 Procedure: IRB Approval 15 Appendices. 16 46 Appendix 1: Doctor of Nursing Practice Proposal Evaluation Framework... 16 Appendix 2: DNP Capstone Project Final Evaluation Framework... 18 Appendix 3: DNP Capstone Proposal Template 22 Appendix 4: SQUIRE Guidelines (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence).. 33 Appendix 5: Systematic Review Proposal Outline... 36 Appendix 6: Scientific Review Panel Decision Routing Sheet.. 46 Page 2 of 46

PROJECT OVERVIEW Capstone Project All students enrolled in the Doctor of Nursing Practice Program will complete an evidence-based practice capstone project as a requirement for graduation. The capstone project is a culmination of the knowledge gained in the DNP courses. The project is an opportunity to demonstrate an analytical approach to programmatic, administrative, policy or practice issues in a format that supports the synthesis, transfer and utilization of knowledge. This project will demonstrate identification and resolution of a practice problem through the scholarship of application or integration, rather than the scholarship of discovery associated with a PhD program of study (Boyer, 1997). In other words, a capstone project is broad and holistic. The experience is designed to put to use the knowledge and skills gained within the doctoral program in a specific practice area of the student s choice. The project is chosen to make a contribution -- in the work place, the community or in the academic arena. As such, capstone experiences are characterized by intensive interactions between and among faculty, students, and the community in which the capstone is enacted. A capstone project is not intended to test new models, develop new theory, or test hypotheses. Depending upon the student s area of emphasis or interest, the capstone project might include the evaluation of a program or intervention, an analysis of a health care policy, an in-depth case study, a gap analysis, a comprehensive systematic review for determination of best practice, or the development of a strategic plan for the delivery of healthcare. Types of DNP projects System modification for quality improvement processes Analyze a state or national health care policy and propose a change in the model or implementation of policy Develop and implement information technologies to improve outcomes Compare care and teaching models, potential cost savings, and outcomes. Design and evaluate health care or health education programs. Lead consumer and professional coalition projects to develop, implement or evaluate programs Page 3 of 46

Systematic review with best practice recommendations and an outcome product, such as a clinical guideline, a toolkit, a grant. Documentation of Student Progress The student and Doctoral Committee Chair share responsibility for all documentation of the student s progress toward completion of the capstone project. Doctoral Committee Chair will file: 1. Committee Approval: Doctor of Nursing Practice Proposal Evaluation Framework (Appendix 1) 2. Committee Approval: DNP Capstone Project Final Evaluation Framework (Appendix 2) Student will file: 1. Certificate of Completion: CITI training https://www.citiprogram.org/default.asp? 2. eirb Proposal(s) if appropriate https://eirb.rutgers.edu/eirb/rooms/displaypages/layoutinitial?container=com.webridge.e ntity.entity[oid[57e51a467e91e34d8bba2941270e7e59]] a. IRB Notification(s) of Approval if appropriate b. Final Study Report/Study Closure Form if appropriate http://rbhs.rutgers.edu/hsweb/forms/forms_final_study_report.pdf Capstone Project Steps 1. Review the DNP Capstone Project process and procedures http://nursing.rutgers.edu/students/dnpexecutive/dnp-teach-out-capstone.html 2. Contact assigned DNP chair to discuss project topic. 3. Complete CITI training https://www.citiprogram.org/default.asp? 4. Review and follow appropriate DNP proposal templates http://nursing.rutgers.edu/students/dnpexecutive/dnp-teach-out-capstone.html: Proposal Template (Appendix 3), Systematic Review Proposal Outline (Appendix 4) and Proposal for a QI Proposal with an Intervention (Appendix 5). Page 4 of 46

5. Submit draft of DNP Capstone Project Proposal to Doctoral Committee Chair for review and feedback. Allow 2-3 weeks for committee review. Make recommended revisions (may require several submissions) http://nursing.rutgers.edu/students/dnpexecutive/dnp-teachout-capstone.html. 6. Select second member of the Doctoral Committee in collaboration with your chair (The second person does not have to be a Rutgers University-School of Nursing (RUSN) faculty member, must have a doctorate). 7. Submit DNP Capstone Project Proposal to Scientific Review Board for review and feedback. Proposal and submission is initiated by Capstone Chair. 8. Collaborate with Doctoral Committee to schedule a proposal hearing meeting. Submit the final/revised copy of your DNP Capstone Project Proposal at least 2 weeks in advance of the scheduled meeting. 9. Orally present your DNP Capstone Project Proposal to your Doctoral Committee (Proposal Hearing). Once approved, the Doctoral Committee Chairperson will file the Doctoral Committee approval of the DNP Capstone Project Proposal. Student is responsible for bringing form to proposal hearing. 10. Contact Doctoral Committee Chairperson for assistance with filing of eirb application if applicable. 11. Submit eirb application to The Rutgers-University Institutional Review Board (IRB) and allow 4-6 weeks for the IRB response. Incomplete or unsatisfactory proposals may require revision and resubmission and extend time for approval. Project implementation or data collection may not begin until IRB approval is formally obtained. 12. Notify Doctoral Committee Chair of the IRB status and file IRB Notification(s) of Approval. 13. Implement and evaluate your approved project. 14. Submit the draft of DNP Capstone Project Report to all Doctoral Committee Members for review and feedback. Allow 2-3 weeks for Doctoral Committee review and make recommended revisions. 15. Collaborate with your Doctoral Committee Chair to schedule a final project defense meeting. 16. Contact Maureen Thomas to schedule a defense date. Allow 2 weeks for room scheduling and announcement circulation. 17. Formally present and orally defend the DNP Capstone Project to your Doctoral Committee (Defense). Once defense has occurred the Doctoral Committee Chair will file the DNP Page 5 of 46

Capstone Project Final Approval once it is completed. Student is responsible for bringing form to Defense. 18. Print out five (5) copies of Title page Capstone http://nursing.rutgers.edu/students/dnpexecutive/dnp-teach-out-capstone.html and bring to defense for appropriate signatures. 19. Secure five (5) bound copies of final (after all revisions completed) Capstone and submit to DNP Program Director. 20. Submit the IRB Final Study Report/Study Closure http://rbhs.rutgers.edu/hsweb/forms/forms_final_study_report.pdf. Scientific Review Panel All students and faculty at RUSN must submit their research or project proposal to the Scientific Review Panel for approval before beginning the project, submitting an IRB application or applying for funding. Submission of a proposal that is ready for review by the panel must first be approved by either the Committee Chair (for students) or the Department Chair (for faculty) and must be accompanied by the attached SRP routing sheet. A review will be delayed if this sheet is not submitted along with the proposal. Function The function of the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) is to review faculty research and student capstone and dissertation proposals for quality and scientific merit. Process Review Criteria. The Science Review Panel is charged by the Dean of the School of Nursing with reviewing proposals within their purview on the basis of quality and scientific merit. Panelists are to carefully consider the question: "How scientifically sound is this proposal? Of importance, reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the proposal is sound from a theoretical and methodological perspective in order to move forward to initiation, IRB review, or a funding source. A scoring sheet for guidance in determining the quality of the proposal is attached. Please see individual decision sheets for the various methods to be reviewed (quantitative, qualitative, systematic review, translational, other, which may include website development, curriculum development, strategic plans, etc). The SRP may, however, wish to take into account additional factors in rating proposals: 1. Possibility of using more appropriate data. The SRP may wish to consider the possibility that other data may be more appropriate for reaching the goals of the proposal. For instance, Page 6 of 46

the relevant data might already exist as a secondary source or the goals may relate to a previous study or project that can be extended forming a legacy project. The SRP can make these recommendations. 2. Selection of methods. Is the right method proposed? For example, reviewers may consider that a particular proposal is better done in a configuration other than the one proposed, or may not need one of the methods that is proposed, and can make this recommendation. 3. Student status. Student dissertation research as well as capstone projects will be reviewed. Reviewers are encouraged to comment on this topic, and may choose to support proposals that are not at the higher end of the scoring system given the novice status of the proposal author. 4. Refer to the flow chart attached for details and timelines. Conflict of Interest Before beginning their assigned review, panelists must self-declare whether they believe themselves to be conflicted on any particular proposal - that is, if they believe they cannot render a fair and unbiased opinion on a given proposal, they should declare themselves to be conflicted. Examples include proposals by teams that include a reviewer's spouse, significant other, or other immediate family members; it may include collaborators on other projects, or competitors, and so on. This issue is to be decided at the individual reviewer's discretion and conscience. If a panelist self-declares a conflict, the proposal in question is assigned to another panelist for review. SRP Meetings An SRP will have two weeks in which to review all proposals for which it is responsible. Once SRP panelists have reviewed all of their proposals they must submit their final reviews on the SRP sheet attached to the panel chair, who will put the proposal on the review agenda. The SRP then meets to review the proposals. SRP meetings are not expected to be more than a 60 minutes in duration. The purpose of the SRP meeting is to review and discuss the proposals and their ranking. It is sometimes the case that reviewer opinion and, hence, scores differ considerably for one or more proposals. The reasons for these differences may lie in a misinterpretation of the proposal's scientific justification, in the reviewers' understanding of the proposed strategy, or a genuine difference of opinion concerning the scientific merit of the proposal, particularly in relation to student proposals or proposals that are a new direction for a researcher. The purpose of the SRP meeting is to reconcile such differences. If it is deemed necessary, the score of a proposal may be changed by the SRP Chair. A Scoring Guidance Table will be used to assist in these decisions. Distribution of Proposals for Review There are five individual review panels: quantitative, qualitative, systematic review/comparative effectiveness review, translational research/knowledge translation, and other, which may include Page 7 of 46

such proposals as program evaluation and strategic planning. Each panel will meet twice a month as appropriate. Each proposal will be reviewed by at least two panel members. The panel chair will distribute proposals to panel members after receipt of the proposal and routing sheet from the faculty or student. Following review, each panel member will submit their decision sheet to the panel chair, who will forward it to Research Committee chair as information and to the individual faculty member or student s chair for action. Guidelines for the DNP Proposal Hearing The DNP Proposal Hearing is a presentation of the capstone project proposal. The verbal presentation should include statements of the problem, a brief review of salient literature, methods to be used, anticipated results, and potential implications of the study. PowerPoint slides may be used. The Doctoral Committee Chair will conduct the meeting. The student, Doctoral Committee Chair and Doctoral Committee Members must attend the presentation. The hearing shall be scheduled near the beginning of the second year of study, at a time and place that is convenient and agreed upon by the Doctoral Committee Chair, the Doctoral Committee Members and the defending student. Proposal hearings for projects with more than one student may be combined into a symposium format, if this is agreed upon by all faculty and students involved. The student is responsible for determining with committee members a date and time. The Doctoral Committee Chair will advise the student when he/she is ready to set a date for the proposal hearing. Following the hearing, Doctoral Committee Chair and committee member will jointly decide if the student has completed the requirements for the proposal. The Doctoral Committee Chair will notify the student of the decision, including any necessary changes to be made in the proposal, immediately following the Committee's deliberations. In the event that changes are to be made to the proposal, these shall be done under the direction of the Doctoral Committee Chair. A Doctor of Nursing Practice Proposal Evaluation Framework (Appendix 1) will be completed by the Doctoral Committee Chair and submitted to the DNP Program Director. Please note that no data collection or interventions related to the project can be started prior to approval by the project committee and Rutgers-University s IRB, if necessary. Oral Defense Guidelines 1. The Doctoral Committee Chair introduces the Committee members, the doctoral student(s), and his/her proposal title. 2. The doctoral student(s) presents his/her/their completed project (30' to 1 hour). 3. The Doctoral Committee Members ask questions, followed by questions from the audience (30' approximately). Page 8 of 46

4. The Doctoral Committee Members deliberate on the student's (s') project in a separate room (10' to 15'). 5. The Doctoral Committee Chair announces the Committee deliberation. 6. The Doctoral Committee Members complete the DNP Capstone Project Final Evaluation Framework (Appendix 2) and sign five copies of the Capstone Title Page. Timelines for Project Completion DNP Capstone Project Schedule Activities Outcomes/Product Semester One Work with Clinical Inquiry One Faculty to formulate a practice problem. Synthesis Matrix and Synthesis paper Begin review of the relevant literature. Organize reviewed literature in a Synthesis Matrix and incorporate into Synthesis Paper for your project proposal. Semester Two Work with Doctoral Committee Chair to finalize your topic selection and identify Doctoral Committee Members. Approved topic selection and Doctoral Committee formulation Semester Three Refine/focus literature search/review and further develop project proposal (using appropriate template). Submit Capstone Proposal to Chair. Semester Four Submit Capstone Proposal to Chair. Committee Approval: Doctor of Nursing Practice Proposal Evaluation Framework Page 9 of 46

Proposal Hearing (Appendix 1) Obtain IRB approval if applicable. Semester Five Implement and evaluate your approved project. Apply for graduation Semester Six Submit and defend final capstone project Close out IRB application if applicable Committee Approval: DNP Capstone Project Final Evaluation Framework (Appendix 2) Timelines for DNP Capstone Project and Graduation Approved Proposal and IRB Approval Last Day for Capstone Defense Graduation Date April 15th August 31st September 15th August 15th December 31st January 15th December 15th April 30th May DOCTORAL COMMITTEE GUIDELINES A capstone project is done with the advice and guidance of a committee. The Project Committee will consist of at least one RUSN doctoral faculty, who will function as Doctoral Committee Chair, and at least one other person, who will function as a committee member. The second person does not have to be a RUSN faculty member, must have a doctorate, and be selected in collaboration with the Doctoral Committee Chair, with the Chair having the final approval. There may, depending upon the type of project you are doing or on the advice of your Doctoral Committee Chair, need a larger committee. Role of Doctoral Committee Chair move to next page? Page 10 of 46

1. Assure IRB compliance, mentor student throughout the preparation of the capstone project proposal, the project development, implementation, and evaluation process, and the final written DNP Capstone Project Report; 2. Collaborate with student to schedule Doctoral Committee meetings for proposal hearing and final capstone project defense. 3. Lead Doctoral Committee review and approval of the DNP Project Proposal, Final DNP Project Report and oral defense presentations. 4. Communicate effectively with committee members. 5. Provide feedback to student on written drafts in a timely manner. 6. Document student progress toward completion of DNP Capstone Project requirements. 7. Mentor School of Nursing faculty with interest in participating in DNP student s Capstone Projects. Role of Faculty Doctoral Committee Member: 1. Critique drafts of the developing DNP Capstone Project proposal. 2. Participate in committee review and approval of the Project Proposal, Final Project Report and oral defense presentations. 3. Provide feedback to student on written drafts in a timely manner. 4. Communicate concerns to student and Doctoral Committee Chairperson in a timely manner. Role of Student: 1. Maintain consistent and effective communication with committee chair. 2. Collaborate with Doctoral Committee Chairperson to schedule committee meetings for proposal hearing and final DNP Capstone Project Report. 3. Generate and submit all forms as required. 4. Submit work to the Doctoral Committee that demonstrates a high level of scholarship and interventions Page 11 of 46

PROCEDURE: Establish Doctoral Committee Chair and Members 1. DNP program director will collaborate with DNP Committee members to review focused problems/pico questions formulated by DNP students during their Clinical Inquiry I course. 2. DNP Committee members will self-select students. 3. DNP program director will notify the student via email of the faculty member selected to serve as Doctoral Committee Chair. 4. DNP student will collaborate with the Doctoral Committee Chair to refine and narrow the project topic and identify potential committee members. 5. Doctoral Committee Chair will send email to DNP program director detailing Capstone project title and committee members. PROCEDURE: Request to Change Doctoral Committee Changes to the membership of the Doctoral Committee may occasionally be required during the time of projected completion. To change committee membership: 1. DNP student will send an email to Doctoral Committee Chair and DNP program director requesting a change. DNP program director will notify the student via email of the new faculty member selected to serve as Doctoral Committee Chair. DNP CAPSTONE PROJECT PROPOSAL http://nursing.rutgers.edu/students/dnpexecutive/files/proposaltemplate.doc (Appendix 3) http://nursing.rutgers.edu/students/dnpexecutive/files/standardsforqualityimprovementreporti ngexcellence.pdf (Appendix 4) http://nursing.rutgers.edu/students/dnpexecutive/files/systematicreviewpropsaloutline.pdf (Appendix 5) Page 12 of 46

PROCEDURE: DNP Capstone Project Proposal Approval http://nursing.rutgers.edu/students/dnpexecutive/files/dnpproposalevaluationframework.pdf a. Review drafts of the project proposal for compliance with the Doctor of Nursing Practice Proposal Evaluation Framework (Appendix 1). b. Submit written draft to Doctoral Committee Members for review. Amend report as recommended by the Committee. c. Collaborate with Doctoral Committee Chair to schedule the project proposal defense meeting. The student, Doctoral Committee Chair and members are required to attend the proposal defense meeting. d. Submit your final draft of the Capstone Project Proposal for defense at least 2 weeks prior to the scheduled defense meeting. e. Be prepared to discuss the entire proposal. f. The proposal defense will be evaluated by Doctoral Committee members according to Doctor of Nursing Practice Proposal Evaluation Framework (Appendix 1). g. Following the student presentation, the Doctoral Committee will provide verbal feedback and recommendations to the student regarding the defense. At completion of the proposal defense meeting, the Doctoral Committee Chairperson will summarize the major points raised by the Doctoral Committee and solicit recommendations for approval. h. The Doctoral Committee may choose to: a. Approve the proposal. Doctoral Committee Chair will file approval of the DNP Capstone Project Proposal on behalf of the Doctoral Committee. Once the DNP Capstone Project Proposal is approved, the student becomes a candidate and may write DNP(c) after his or her name until graduation at which time the DNP candidate will be granted the degree along with the rights and privileges awarded by the degree. b. Conditionally approve with minor revisions and no re-review. The student will file a final/revised project proposal to Doctoral Committee Chair within one month of the proposal defense meeting. c. Require minor or major revisions and re-review. Revisions required: The student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal. The Doctoral Committee Chair will work with the student on the revision. The Committee will review the new proposal and all prior steps will be repeated. Page 13 of 46

d. Reject the proposal. The student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal. The Doctoral Committee Chair will work with the candidate on the revision. The Doctoral Committee will review the new proposal and all prior steps will be repeated. PROCEDURE: Capstone Project Approval http://nursing.rutgers.edu/students/dnpexecutive/files/dnpcapstoneprojectfinalevaluationfra mework.pdf 1. Review draft of the final report for compliance with the DNP Capstone Project Final Evaluation Framework (Appendix 2). 2. Submit drafts to committee members for review. Amend report as recommended by committee. 3. Collaborate with Doctoral Committee Chairperson to schedule the project defense meeting. The candidate, Doctoral Committee Chairperson, and members of the candidate's Doctoral Committee are required to attend the project defense meeting. 4. Submit final draft of project report for defense at least 2 weeks prior to the scheduled meeting. 5. Be prepared to discuss the entire capstone project and written report. The candidate shall present the DNP Capstone Project and otherwise satisfy the Doctoral Committee that he or she is qualified to receive the degree of Doctor of Nursing Practice. 6. The project defense will be evaluated by the Doctoral Committee Members according to the DNP Capstone Project Final Evaluation Framework (Appendix 2). 7. The candidate may be questioned by members of an audience and by the Doctoral Committee members. 8. The Doctoral Committee will convene in private to complete the questioning and will ask the candidate to leave during the voting process. The Doctoral Committee may choose to: a. Approve the Capstone Project Doctoral Committee Chair will file DNP Capstone Project Final Evaluation Framework (Appendix 2) on behalf of the Doctoral Committee and forward to DNP Program Director. Once the DNP Capstone Project Proposal is approved, the student becomes eligible for graduation at which time the DNP candidate will be granted the degree along with the rights and privileges awarded by the degree. Page 14 of 46

b. Conditionally approve the Capstone Project with minor revisions The student will file a final/revised project proposal to Doctoral Committee Chair within two weeks of the proposal defense meeting. c. Reject the Capstone Project The student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal. The Doctoral Committee Chair will work with the candidate on the revision. The Doctoral Committee will review the new proposal and all prior steps will be repeated. IRB FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS It is the responsibility of the student to seek guidance from the Doctoral Committee Chair regarding the Rutgers University s Institutional Review Board (IRB) procedures for the capstone project. IRB approval is sought following approval of the DNP Capstone Project Proposal by the Doctoral Committee. PROCEDURE: IRB Approval 1. Contact your Doctoral Committee Chairperson for assistance with filing of eirb application if applicable. 2. Submit eirb application to the Rutgers University s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and allow 4-6 weeks for the IRB response. Incomplete or unsatisfactory proposals may require revision and resubmission and extend time for approval. Project implementation or data collection may not begin until IRB approval is formally obtained. 3. Allowed 4-6 weeks for a response from the IRB regarding proposals submitted for review. 4. Notify Doctoral Committee Chair of the IRB status and file IRB Notification(s) of Approval. 5. Submit the IRB Final Study Report/Study Closure http://rbhs.rutgers.edu/hsweb/forms/forms_final_study_report.pdf Page 15 of 46

Appendix 1 Doctor of Nursing Practice Proposal Evaluation Framework Student s Name Title of Capstone: Background information./literature supports problem Problem/change clearly identified Scope of project realistic and appropriate Other: Need, feasibility and significance are clearly presented Literature, benchmarks and supporting data provided and appropriate Framework (theoretical/conceptual/practice) is evident and appropriate Other: Objectives stated in feasible and measurable terms Evaluation measures linked to objectives Other: Appropriate for objectives Clear rationale for actions/method Setting and group clearly described Tools/measures described Resources/supports and risks/threats and benefits noted Satisfactory As presented Problem Analyses/Framework Project Objectives Action Plan/Method Satisfactory with Following Recommendations Unsatisfactory Page 16 of 46

Analysis/Evaluation plan delineated Timeframe is feasible Informed Consent, if necessary, meets human subject requirements All approvals are in place, including: (List approvals). Approvals ` Writing and Organization APA format followed appropriately; clear writing Proposal submitted to Turn-It-In; originality report attached a. Accept the proposal. Doctoral Committee Chair will file approval of the DNP Capstone Project Proposal on behalf of the Doctoral Committee. Once the DNP Capstone Project Proposal is approved, the student becomes a candidate and may write DNP(c) after his or her name until graduation at which time the DNP candidate will be granted the degree along with the rights and privileges awarded by the degree. b. Conditionally accept with minor revisions and no re-review. The student will file a final/revised project proposal to Doctoral Committee Chair within one month of the proposal defense meeting. c. Require minor or major revisions and re-review. Revisions required: The student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal. The Doctoral Committee Chair will work with the student on the revision. The Committee will review the new proposal and all prior steps will be repeated. d. Reject the proposal. The student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal. The Doctoral Committee Chair will work with the candidate on the revision. The Doctoral Committee will review the new proposal and all prior steps will be repeated. Doctoral Committee Chair s Signature: Doctoral Committee Member s Signature: Doctoral student s Signature: Date: Page 17 of 46

Appendix 2 DNP Capstone Project Final Evaluation Framework Student s Name: Title of Capstone: 1 = Very poorly; 2 = Poorly; 3 = Good; 4 = Very Good; 5 = Excellent I. Capstone Components The candidate addresses each capstone component: 1 (Fail) Background and Significance Background information/literature demonstrates the focused need or problem. Literature review supports significance / relevance of problem / proposed project / intervention. Need, feasibility and significance are clearly presented. Problem Statement or Purpose Problem/ purpose clearly described. Scope of project realistic and appropriate. Theoretical Framework Framework (theoretical/conceptual/practice) is described/evident and applicable. Project Description Literature, benchmarks and supporting data provided and organized into integrated synthesized summary Objectives stated in feasible and measurable terms. Congruence of organizations strategic plan to project is described. Project Design Appropriate for objectives. Clear rationale for actions/method. Setting and group clearly described. Implementation methods/tools/measures Page 18 of 46 2 3 4 5 Comments

clearly described. Resources/supports and risks/threats and benefits noted. Time frame outlined. Evaluation Plan Analysis/Evaluation plan coherent / consistent with project plan. Evaluation measures linked to objectives. Outcomes / evidence-based measures appropriate for objectives. Tools / instruments described and linked to measures and objectives. Method of analysis clearly described for each measurement. Findings Findings organized in appropriate format. Findings linked to problem statement, purpose objectives and evaluation plan. Described the extent to which the objectives were achieved. Addressed key facilitators and barriers that impacted the project s objectives. Described unintended consequences (both positive and negative). Recommendations/Implications Recommendations/Implications addressed for problem statement, supporting organization, key stakeholders, other settings, and student. Included recommendations related to identified facilitators / barriers and unintended consequences. Addressed any ongoing activities or evaluations outside the scope of the DNP Capstone Project. Writing and Organization APA format followed appropriately; writing is scholarly and clear; appropriate for doctoral level education. II. Project Synthesis Extent to which candidate met goals/aims of project. If not, appropriate Page 19 of 46

rationale and explanation provided. Extent to which candidate integrated scientific curiosity and inquiry in project completion. Extent to which candidate analyzed issues and provided critique of advanced nursing practice within the project. Extend to which candidate demonstrated practice inquiry skills including appraising and translating evidence. Evidence of candidate s ability to engage in collaborative partnership(s) in designing and implementing capstone project. Ability of candidate to articulate state of current knowledge as it relates to advanced practice nursing in the health care system. a. Approve the Capstone Project Once the DNP Capstone Project Proposal is approved, the student becomes eligible for graduation at which time the DNP candidate will be granted the degree along with the rights and privileges awarded by the degree. b. Conditionally approve the Capstone Project with minor revisions The student will file a final/revised project proposal to Doctoral Committee Chair within two weeks of the proposal defense meeting. c. Reject the Capstone Project The student must develop a significantly revised or new proposal. The Doctoral Committee Chair will work with the candidate on the revision. The Doctoral Committee will review the new proposal and all prior steps will be repeated. Doctoral Committee Chair s Signature: Doctoral Committee Member s Signature: Doctoral Student s Signature: Date: Page 20 of 46

Adapted from: DNP Capstone Project Guidelines Graceland University School of Nursing. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from https://my.graceland.edu/ics/icsfs/capstoneproject_guidelines_fall2011.pdf?target=2cef182d- 3011-4aad-bc54-03a0e98eac35 Page 21 of 46

Appendix 3 DNP Capstone Proposal Template Full Title of the Proposal Author s Name (no professional initials) Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey-School of Nursing Capstone Chair: Type your advisor s name here Capstone Committee Member: Type your committee member s name here Date of Submission: Month, Day, Year Page 22 of 46

SHORTENED VERSION OF PROPOSAL Table of Contents Abstract... 24 Introduction and Background... 25 Problem Statement... 25 Objectives and Aims... 25 Review of Literature... 26 Theoretical Model... 27 Project and Study Design... 27 Setting and Resources... 28 Location of Group I... 28 Location of Group II... 28 Study Population... 28 Sources of Data... 28 Data Analysis... 28 Quality... 28 Ethics and Human Subjects Protection... 29 Timeframes or Timeline... 29 Budget... 29 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study... 29 Conclusion... 29 References... 31 Appendix... 32 Basic APA, 6 th ed., Citation Styles... 32 Page 23 of 46

SHORTENED VERSION OF PROPOSAL Abstract This template is a guide to writing a capstone project proposal in APA Style, 6th edition; not for a systematic review proposal. It provides the necessary sections, headings, and subheadings required in a proposal, as well as the line and paragraph spacing, page breaks, page numbering, and referencing styles. It is formatted with one inch top, bottom, left, and right margins; Times New Roman font in 12 point; double-spaced; aligned flush left; and paragraphs indented 5-7 spaces. The page number appears one inch from the right edge on the first line of each page. There should be two spaces between sentences. Without changing the formatting, insert your own text into each template section. This section of the template provides an example of what an abstract would look like. An abstract is a brief (approximately 250 words) one-paragraph summary of the contents of the proposal. The abstract, typically written last, includes an overview of the proposed project's background and review of literature, purpose, method, results, and conclusion. It is non-evaluative, that is, does not contain personal comments. It is not indented nor does it contain citations. Keywords, such as those below, are words you used to perform database searches for the proposal. For more information about APA Style, see the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.), the APA Style web site found at http://www.apastyle.org, and the Purdue Owl Writing Center website found at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/. Keywords: APA style, sixth edition, publication manual Page 24 of 46

SHORTENED VERSION OF PROPOSAL Introduction and Background In this introductory section, write a few paragraphs that give an overview of your topic and background information. Tell why the study problem is important. Build a case for the need for the project that you propose to perform. Support this with findings from the literature, include relevant statistics, and cite them according to APA Style, 6 th ed. As O'Leary (2010) says, "the main job of this section is "to... convince your readers that the problem you want to address is significant and worth exploring" (p. 64). All source material used in this proposal must be documented in the body of the paper by citing the authors and dates of the sources (See Appendix A for basic citation guidelines). The full reference to each citation must appear on a separate reference page(s) entitled 'References'. The reference pages at the end of this template provide examples of types of references frequently used in academic papers. Reference entries are typed in hanging indent format, meaning that the first line of each reference is set flush left and subsequent lines are indented. Problem Statement Your introduction section should smoothly transition into your problem statement. It should flow logically from the information you provided. Include your inquiry question that will provide direction for your work. Explain your approach to the problem and how your approach will address it. Objectives and Aims Explain the aims and objectives of the project. According to O'Leary (2010), proposals have one overarching aim that captures what you hope to achieve through your project; whereas, a set of objectives, which are a set of more specific goals, supports that aim. Aims and Page 25 of 46

SHORTENED VERSION OF PROPOSAL objectives are often written in bullet points as 'to' statements, such as, 'to' develop, 'to' identify, 'to' measure, 'to' explain, 'to' compare. Review of Literature The goal of a review of literature is to present an in-depth, current state of knowledge about your particular topic. Rather than just summarizing and listing research studies performed on your topic, summarize and then synthesize the key concepts of the literature you have read. Identify any major trends, patterns, or gaps you may have found in the literature and identify any relationships among studies. In general, there is a five-year span from the present for the date of literature you should use except for an older, landmark study, which should be identified as such. Think of a review of literature as a puzzle that you will put together with individual pieces from various sources of literature in order to reveal a whole picture of the state of knowledge about your topic. The review of literature for your proposal should provide the context for your proposal and your future capstone project. When you begin to write your narrative, define your topic and provide relevant statistical information, followed by historical and current background information. Organize your main findings by using subheadings called Level 2 headings, which are typed in bold face type, in upper and lower case letters, and typed flush with the left side of the paper. Examples of Level 2 headings can be found in this paper under Project and Methods Design. Use Level 3 headings to further subdivide topics. Level 3 headings are indented, typed in lowercase letters, in boldface, indented, and followed by a period. The APA Manual or the Purdue Owl Writing Center website provides more information about all five levels of headings in APA Style, 6 th edition. Page 26 of 46

SHORTENED VERSION OF PROPOSAL Build a strong case for your topic's importance and the need for a capstone project that will address the issues surrounding it. Explain how you propose to address these issues with your capstone project. Support your case with citations from the literature. Next, write your findings from the literature central to your topic. Avoid describing a series of studies. Use quotes sparingly and only to emphasize or explain an important point. Also, do not make broad statements about the conclusiveness of research studies, either positive or negative. Be objective in your presentation of the facts. Each paragraph should begin with a thesis statement and describe only one key. The idea in the next paragraph should logically flow from the content of its predecessor. Conclude the review of literature with a concise summary of your findings and provide a rationale for conducting your capstone, based on your findings. Theoretical Model In this section, name and define the theoretical or conceptual model that underpins your proposal and future capstone project. Place a diagram of the model at the end of the paper, after the Reference pages and refer to the diagram in this section. Project and Study Design In this section, clearly explain your project design (type of study) and the method you will use to obtain the desired outcomes of your project. Use the future tense to explain what you will do in your capstone. Convince the reader that your approach is practical and will lead to credible answers to your posed inquiry question. Write a paragraph describing each of the following subheadings as they apply to your project. Page 27 of 46

SHORTENED VERSION OF PROPOSAL Setting and Resources Describe where the project will take place and any resources necessary for the project. If you need to further subdivide any Level 2 Heading, use a Level 3 Heading as shown below. Location of Group I Location of Group II Study Population Describe the study participants, all people involved, and the role they will play, as well as the sampling, the sampling size, and selection of sample or recruitment strategies, if applicable. Report the eligibility and exclusion criteria. Describe the groups with emphasis on characteristics (variables) that may have bearing on the interpretation of results. Sources of Data use. Describe the sources and collection of data, its management and the instruments you will Data Analysis Fully address the statistical planning, if applicable, and the methods of collection such as surveys, interviews, or document analysis. Confer with your advisor as to whether you should construct a data collection/analysis table or a table of evidence. Refer to each table in the text, but put the table after the reference pages. Quality Discuss the mechanisms you will use to assure the quality of the study, for example, the control of bias or the safe storage of data. Page 28 of 46

SHORTENED VERSION OF PROPOSAL Ethics and Human Subjects Protection Discuss ethical considerations and use of the Institutional Review Board, as well as any risks and benefits, if applicable. Timeframes or Timeline Discuss the timetable for completion of the project. Budget Provide a full account of costs and who will bear them, if applicable. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study Confer with your chair as to whether you should include your thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the study. Conclusion Write your conclusions here. Once you complete the entire proposal, the Table of Contents will be created automatically if you format all your headings with Microsoft Word Heading Levels 1, 2, or 3 Styles, using the formatting toolbar. Each version of Microsoft Word is different; therefore, you need to familiarize yourself with the Microsoft Styles on your computer in order to create heading levels which automatically format into a table of contents in this document. DO NOT simply center and embolden your text to create a Level 1 heading. To view the current state of the Table of Contents and then make changes and update it, first select all text with keystroke Ctrl-A, then press the F9 key. Then, click on Update the entire table and view the table. Page 29 of 46

SHORTENED VERSION OF PROPOSAL References [As previously mentioned, all literature cited in the proposal must be referenced in APA Style, 6th edition, on a separate reference page(s). The following list shows the more commonly used references. For more information on how to reference, refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6 th ed.), the APA Style web site found at http://www.apastyle.org, and the Purdue Owl Writing Center website found at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/. Note that appendices appear after the reference page(s). They are used to present detailed information that adds to the body of the paper, for example, sample questionnaires, tables, or figures. Tables usually show numerical values or textual information arranged in an orderly display of columns and rows. Any type of illustration other than a table is a figure. Figures present data in the forms of graphs, charts, maps, drawings, and photographs. If your manuscript has only one appendix, label it Appendix in italics. If it has more than one, label each appendix with a capital letter, for example, Appendix A, Appendix B, according to the order in which you refer to it in your text. Label each appendix with a title, but refer to it in the text by its label, for example, (see the Appendix for basic APA, 6 th edition, citation styles. Page 30 of 46

References American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6 th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, A.K., Christoff, K., Panitz, D., DeRosa, E., & Gabrieli, J.D.E. (2003). Neural correlates of the automatic processing of threat facial signals. Journal of Neuroscience, 23(2), 5267-5633. Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (1991). Title of book chapter or entry. In A. Editor, B. Editor, & C. Editor (Eds.), Title of book (pp. xxx-xxx). St. Louis: Mosby. Chinn, P.L., & Kramer, M.K. (2004). Integrated knowledge development in nursing (6 th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Clay, R. (2008, June). Science vs. ideology: Psychologists fight back about the misuse of research. Monitor on Psychology, 39(6). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor New child vaccine gets funding boost. (2001). Retrieved March 21, 2001, from http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/story_13178.asp O'Leary, Z. (2010). The Essential Guide to Doing Your Research Project. Los Angeles: Sage. Ross, D.L. & Hvizdash, S. (2002). Integrating religious practices in home health care: A case study of collaborative between the health care system and the Orthodox Jew. Home Health Care Management & Practice, 14(6), 457-460. 10.1177/108482202236699 Schiraldi, G. R. (2003). The post-traumatic stress disorder sourcebook: A guide to healing. (Adobe Digital Edition version). Doi: 10.1036/10071393722 Smith, M. (2001). Writing a successful paper. The Trey Research Monthly, 53(1), 149-150. Page 31 of 46

Appendix Basic APA, 6 th ed., Citation Styles Type of Appearance: Appearance: Appearance: Appearance: Citation Beginning of Beginning of End of sentence; End of sentence; sentence; first sentence; first mention in subsequent mention in text subsequent mention text mention in text in text One work/ Jones (2007) Jones (2007) (Jones, 2007) (Jones, 2007) one author One work/ Jones and Jones and Allen (Jones & Allen, (Jones & Allen, two authors Allen (1999) (1999) 1999) 1999) One work/ Jones, Stutz, Jones et al. (1999) (Jones, Ramirez, & (Jones et al., 1999) three authors and Zay (1999) Zay, 1999) One work/ Jones, Stutz, Jones et al. (2006) (Jones, Stutz, Zay, (Jones et al., 2006) four authors Zay, and & Walsh, 2006) Walsh (2006) One work/ Jones, Allen, Jones et al. (2008) (Jones, Allen, (Jones et al., 2008) five authors Stutz, Ramirez, Stutz, Ramirez, & and Zay, Zay, 2008) (2008) One work/ six authors Stutz et al. (2005) Stutz et al. (2005) (Stutz et al., 2005) (Stutz et al., 005) Page 32 of 46

Appendix 4 SQUIRE Guidelines (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) Final Revision 4-29-08 These guidelines provides framework for reporting formal, planned studies designed to assess the nature and effectiveness of interventions to improve the quality and safety of care. It may not be possible to include information about every numbered guideline item in reports of original formal studies, bur authors should be least consider every item in writing their reports. Although each major section (i.e., Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) of a published original study generally contains some information about the numbered items within that section, information about items from one section (for example, the Introduction) is often also needed in other sections (for example, the Discussion). Text section; Item number and Name Title and abstract Section or Item Description Did you provide clear and accurate information for finding, indexing and scanning your paper? 1. Title a. Indicates the article concerns the improvement of quality (broadly defined to include the safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity of care) b. States the specific aim of the intervention c. Specifies the study method used (for example, A qualitative study, or A randomized cluster trial ) 2. Abstract Summarizes precisely all key information from various sections of the text using the abstract format of the intended publication Introduction Why did you start? 3. Background Provides a brief, non-selective summary of current knowledge of the Knowledge care problem being addressed, and characteristics of organizations in which it occurs 4. Local problem Describes the nature and severity of the specific local problem or system 5. Intended improvement dysfunction that was addressed a. Describes the specific aim (changes/improvements in care processes and patient outcomes) of the proposed intervention b. Specifies who (champions, supporters) and what (events, observations) triggered the decision to make changes, and why now (timing) 6. Study question States precisely the primary improvement-related question and any secondary questions that the study of the intervention was designed to answer Methods What did you do? 7. Ethical issues Describes ethical aspects of implementing and studying the improvement, such as privacy concerns, protection of participants physical well-being, and potential author conflicts of interest, and how ethical concerns were addressed 8. Setting Specifies how elements of the local care environment considered most likely to influence change/improvement in the involved site or sites were identified and characterized Page 33 of 46

Text section; Item number and name 9. Planning the intervention 10. Planning the study of the intervention 11. Methods of evaluation Section or Item description a. Describes the intervention and its component parts in sufficient detail that others could reproduce it b. Indicates main factors that contributed to choice of the specific intervention (for example, analysis of causes of dysfunction; matching relevant improvement experience of others with the local situation) c. Outlines initial plans for how the intervention was to be implemented: e.g., what was to be done (initial steps; functions to be accomplished by those steps; how tests of change would be used to modify intervention), and by whom (intended roles, qualifications, and training of staff) a. Outlines plans for assessing how well the intervention was implemented (dose or intensity of exposure) b. Describes mechanisms by which intervention components were expected to cause changes, and plans for testing whether those mechanisms were effective c. Identifies the study design (for example, observational, quasiexperimental, experimental) chosen for measuring impact of the intervention on primary and secondary outcomes, if applicable d. Explains plans for implementing essential aspects of the chosen study design, as described in publication guidelines for specific designs, if applicable (see, for example, www.equator-network.org) e. Describes aspects of the study design that specifically concerned internal validity (integrity of the data) and external validity (generalizability) a. Describes instruments and procedures (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) used to assess a) the effectiveness of implementation, b) the contributions of intervention components and context factors to effectiveness of the intervention, and c) primary and secondary outcomes b. Reports efforts to validate and test reliability of assessment instruments c. Explains methods used to assure data quality and adequacy (for example, blinding; repeating measurements and data extraction; training in data collection; collection of sufficient baseline measurements) 12. Analysis a. Provides details of qualitative and quantitative (statistical) methods used to draw inferences from the data b. Aligns unit of analysis with level at which the intervention was implemented, if applicable c. Specifies degree of variability expected in implementation, change expected in primary outcome (effect size), and ability of study design (including size) to detect such effects d. Describes analytic methods used to demonstrate effects of time as a variable (for example, statistical process control) Results Outcomes What did you find? a) Nature of setting and improvement intervention i. Characterizes relevant elements of setting or settings (for example, geography, physical resources, organizational culture, history of change efforts), and structures and patterns of care (for example, staffing, leadership) that provided context for the intervention ii. iii. iv. Explains the actual course of the intervention (for example, sequence of steps, events or phases; type and number of participants at key points), preferably using a time-line diagram or flow chart Documents degree of success in implementing intervention components Describes how and why the initial plan evolved, and the most important lessons learned from that evolution, particularly the effects of internal Page 34 of 46

Outcomes (continued) Discussion feedback from tests of change (reflexiveness) b) Changes in processes of care and patient outcomes associated with the intervention i. Presents data on changes observed in the care delivery process ii. Presents data on changes observed in measures of patient outcome (for example, morbidity, mortality, function, patient/staff satisfaction, service utilization, cost, care disparities) iii. iv. Considers benefits, harms, unexpected results, problems, failures Presents evidence regarding the strength of association between observed changes/improvements and intervention components/context factors v. Includes summary of missing data for intervention and outcomes What do the findings mean? 14. Summary a. Summarizes the most important successes and difficulties in implementing intervention components, and main changes observed in care delivery and clinical outcomes b. Highlights the study s particular strengths 15. Relation to other evidence Compares and contrasts study results with relevant findings of others, drawing on broad review of the literature; use of a summary table may be helpful in building on existing evidence 16. Limitations a. Considers possible sources of confounding, bias, or imprecision in design, measurement, and analysis that might have affected study outcomes (internal validity) b. Explores factors that could affect generalizability (external validity), for example: representativeness of participants; effectiveness of implementation; dose-response effects; features of local care setting c. Addresses likelihood that observed gains may weaken over time, and describes plans, if any, for monitoring and maintaining improvement; explicitly states if such planning was not done d. Reviews efforts made to minimize and adjust for study limitations e. Assesses the effect of study limitations on interpretation and application of results 17. Interpretation a. Explores possible reasons for differences between observed and expected outcomes b. Draws inferences consistent with the strength of the data about causal mechanisms and size of observed changes, paying particular attention to components of the intervention and context factors that helped determine the intervention s effectiveness (or lack thereof), and types of settings in which this intervention is most likely to be effective c. Suggests steps that might be modified to improve future performance d. Reviews issues of opportunity cost and actual financial cost of the intervention 18. Conclusions a. Considers overall practical usefulness of the intervention b. Suggests implications of this report for further studies of improvement interventions Other information Were other factors relevant to conduct and interpretation of the study? 19. Funding Describes funding sources, if any, and role of funding organization in design, implementation, interpretation, and publication of study Page 35 of 46

Appendix 5 Systematic Review Proposal Outline Developing a Protocol for a Systematic Review Using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Method The New Jersey Centre for Evidenced Based Healthcare and Patient-Outcomes Research Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Nursing Important Points 1. A systematic review proposal serves as a map for the review. Transparency is important. The objective in writing a proposal for a systematic review is to clearly and succinctly describe what you want to do, why it is important that the review be done, what methods will be used to conduct the review and how the findings of the review might be utilized. 2. The review must be written in English (AU) and in Vancouver format. This guideline is written in English (AU). 3. The body of the proposal for a systematic review should abut 10-15 pages of single spaced text. 4. If the review is undertaken as a doctoral study project, at least one of the reviewers must be a faculty member, and the faculty member must be trained in the JBI method of systematic review. 5. If the review is other than a doctoral study project, either the primary or secondary reviewer must be trained in the JBI method of systematic review. 6. Expect to spend at least 8-12 months completing the review. 7. Use of the CReMS proposal development software provides pre-specified language with a fill in the blanks option to customize the review. 8. Always read one or two proposals on the JBI website before starting to write your own to get a feel for the flow and wording of the JBI method. Page 36 of 46

The key components of a systematic review proposal are: 1. Title 2. Reviewers 3. Beginning and Ending Dates 4. Objective 5. Background 6. Criteria for inclusion of studies in the review Types of Studies Types of Intervention/Phenomenon of Interest Types of Outcomes 7. Search Strategy 8. Assessment of Methodological Quality Critical Appraisal 9. Method to Extract Data 10. Method to Synthesize Data 11. References and Appendices Any acknowledgements should be listed at the end of the paper Page 37 of 46

Title of Systematic Review Protocol The title of the protocol should precisely describe the review to be undertaken. It should not be more than ten-twenty words. One simple sentence that includes the aims and outcomes of the study should suffice. The formal title of the review should be written after the aims and objectives of the review are finalized to ensure congruency. To be a comprehensive review, the review must consider both qualitative and quantitative evidence. Title examples: A systematic review of the effectiveness of smoking cessation strategies for adolescents in a residential facility: Systematic review protocol A qualitative systematic review of the experiences of families of patients in an intensive care unit A comparison of the cost effectiveness of three different methods of intravenous dressing change Reviewers At a minimum, a primary and secondary reviewer should be identified. At least one of the reviewers must be trained in the JBI method of systematic review. Reviewers work independently of each other. The primary reviewer is responsible for the overall conduct of the review and for keeping reviewers on track and moving toward completion of the review. Both reviewers should have a good understanding of research design and the ability to critique research studies. Identifying a third reviewer at the beginning of the review in the event there is disagreement between the primary and secondary reviewer. The third reviewer will assist in resolving any differences. If the review is a doctoral study project, the faculty member will resolve any differences. Page 38 of 46

Beginning and Ending Dates An attempt should be made to identify the dates when the review will begin and the anticipated date of completion. Determining these dates before the review begins can assist in keeping the project on track. Most reviews require 8-12 months for completion. Background The background should describe the issue under review in sufficient detail so that the necessity for conducting the review is clear and unambiguous. It should lay a broad base for the issue that led to the review. A description of the target population, the interventions or phenomenon to be reviewed, and the potential uses of the findings should be presented. Use of statistics can aid in understanding the significance of the review. The background should indicate why the review is necessary and its contribution to health care. The background provides the foundation for development of the review objectives and aims. Questions that need to be addressed in the background include: Who will benefit? What are the specific issues to be addressed? What is the target population? What is the context of the investigation? Why is it necessary to review and pool studies on this topic? Why is this work important? What has already been published? How will this build on published literature, inform practice, and/ or formulate policy? Objectives The review objectives are grounded in the review question and provide the basis for development of the inclusion criteria. The rationale for the objectives should be found in the Page 39 of 46

background. Review objectives are written in measurable terms and need to address the target population, intervention or phenomenon and outcomes. An overall objective for the review is provided first, followed by sub-objectives, as appropriate. Some questions to ask as the proposal objectives are written: Does the overall objective clearly describe the review s purpose and direction? Are the objectives realistic and feasible in relation to the completion date selected? Do the objectives match what is described in the background? Are the objectives stated in measurable terms? Are there objectives written that describe the anticipated outcomes of the review? Criteria for Inclusion of Studies in the Review Inclusion criteria Systematic reviews are distinguished by the transparency with which they are conducted. One of the features that allow this transparency is the pre-specification of the review s inclusion and exclusion criteria, that is, those criteria that make a study eligible for inclusion in the review. Eligibility criteria include parts of the review question and the types of studies that will be sought. The types of participants, types of interventions or phenomenon of interest, and the types of outcomes expected are addressed in the eligibility criteria for the review. Types of studies This section describes the type of studies that will be considered for review. Always start this section by saying: The systematic review will consider randomized controlled trials that investigated.. OR This systematic review will consider studies using a qualitative design, such as phenomenology, grounded theory, narrative review.. In those instances where the reviewer Page 40 of 46

believes that it might be difficult to find the preferred study, the type of study or other literature that will be used instead should also be described. For example: In the absence of randomized controlled trials, descriptive studies such as. Types of Participants Participants in a systematic review refer to the subjects used in the primary studies that will be included in the review. Criteria for selection of these participants must be very clear and specific as key words for searching are developed using these criteria. Participants should be defined in three ways. First, the disease or condition of interest, such as urinary tract infection, breast cancer or type 2 diabetes should be specified. Second, the population of interest must be described in as few words as possible. This step involves deciding on the characteristics or attributes of the population, such as age, race, ethnicity, and educational level. Finally, the type of setting, such as acute care hospital, community mental health center, and ambulatory surgery is described. For example, in a study of the effectiveness of warming methods on operative hypothermia: Adults 18 years of age, who underwent any type of surgery will be included. Patients who were subject to deliberate hypothermia such as those for cardiac or neurosurgical interventions were excluded. In this example, the condition of interest is hypothermia, the population of interest is any adult aged 18 years or older, and the setting of interest is surgery. Types of Interventions/Phenomenon of Interest Next, a description of the types of interventions or phenomenon of interest is necessary. If the proposal is for a review of interventions, the primary and comparison interventions need to be fully described. Following a description of the primary intervention of interest, a decision needs to be made regarding the comparisons, for example, a placebo, another intervention, nothing or Page 41 of 46

usual care. Observational systematic reviews (such as those about risk factors) and qualitative reviews do not have a comparator. Types of Outcomes Explicit criteria for establishing the presence of appropriate outcomes and if necessary, their combinations must be specified. The background should provide enough information to justify the outcomes included and potentially those that were not included. Each outcome should be described and the way in which it was measured should be provided. For example: Length of stay, which will be inclusive of day of admission to day of discharge, will be measured in days. Search strategy for identification of studies The search for articles and papers to be included in the review can be compared to enrolling patients into a primary research study. The articles selected as a result of the search process are, in essence, the subjects for the review. Keywords and phrases provide the foundation for searching, and are derived from the review question. The search includes both published and unpublished work. A concept map is useful in expanding on key words. For example, the phrase critical care can be mapped to include intensive care, intensive care unit, critical care unit, or ICU as well as identified by specialty area, for example, coronary care unit, pediatric intensive care unit, and surgical intensive care unit. By mapping each of the key words and phrases, a more comprehensive search can be conducted. The phases of the search strategy should be very detailed including the initial search and the subsequent expanded search. The search should be described in stages. Stage 1 is the first attempt at the search in which the reviewers use a limited set of key words to find potentially relevant studies. These Page 42 of 46

studies are reviewed in an effort to expand key words and phrases for a more in-depth search. At a minimum, Medline, CINHAL, and the Virginia Henderson Library of Sigma Theta Tau International should be searched during this first stage. As well, attempts should be made to determine if a systematic review already exists on the topic of interest. This is accomplished by searching the Cochrane, Campbell, and Joanna Briggs Institute databases. If a review is found that matches the one under consideration, a decision needs to be made to forego the review or expand on it in some manner. For example, years can be extended, databases can be added, or a new population or setting can be added. Stage 2 expands the databases used and searches these using the full list of key words developed in Stage 1. Stage 3 involves searching the reference lists of identified articles for any relevant references and hand searching appropriate journals. As well, an author search should be conducted on the names of authors known to have conducted research on the review objective. A list of all databases and grey literature and the full list of key words used in the search should be provided. The timeframe for searching each database must be included. If a decision is made not to search the entire database (i.e., from inception) and a narrower timeframe is used, such as 2000-2011, a justification needs to be provided. Databases to search: 1. Stage 1: Medline, CINAHL, Virginia Henderson Library 2. Stage 2: Medline, CINAHL, Academic Search Premiere, Web of Science, DARE. Other include those databases that have relevance to your review objective, e.g., PsyINFO, ERIC Page 43 of 46

3. Grey Literature: Virginia Henderson Library, MEDNAR (which includes Google Scholar), New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report, scirus.com, Proquest Dissertations. Other. Include professional organizations relevant to the review objective to search for reports, guidelines, unpublished research, e.g, American Heart Association Methods of the review Assessment of methodological quality A description of how the quality of each paper will be determined is necessary for the proposal. The appropriate JBI critical appraisal tool should be used. A pre-review determination needs to be made as the scoring of each of the tools used. Data extraction A description of how data will be extracted and managed must also be included. The data extraction tool to be used should be included in the appendices. The appropriate JBI data extraction sheet should be used. Data synthesis The appropriate JBI data synthesis method should be described here. References Vancouver style only Acknowledgements If you received help in developing the proposal from anyone, it should be acknowledged here. If the proposal is for a doctoral project, the project committee should be acknowledged here. Page 44 of 46

Appendices Include all of the JBI critical appraisal tools and data extraction tools to be used. Prepared by: Dr. Cheryl Holly Date: August 7, 2011 Reference: Holly C, Salmond S, Saimbert MK (2011). Comprehensive Systematic Review for Advanced Nursing Practice. NY: Springer Publishing Page 45 of 46

Appendix 6 Scientific Review Panel Decision Routing Sheet Title of Proposal: Proposal Author: Is this a student proposal? Yes No If yes, Committee Chair: Fill out either A or B A. I recommend that this proposal be reviewed by the SRP. It is a student proposal. Committee Chair Date B. I recommend that this proposal be reviewed by the SRP. Department Chair Date The following must be filled out the SRP Chair. Begin the study Revise as indicated and begin the study Revise as indicated and submit to the IRB Revise as indicated and re-submit to the SRP or to the Committee Chair if a student proposal SRP Chair Date Page 46 of 46