Reducing obesity: drivers and trends – literature review – GOV. A review of the published research on obesity drivers doing literature review pdf trends.
A review of the published research on obesity drivers and trends. It is a review of existing research on obesity, mostly of UK or US origin. The intention is that it should stimulate discussion and help Foresight to decide what the project should and should not cover. Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details. Writing creative non-fiction at a research level is hard, skilled work, across all disciplines.
There are two main versions. The humanities and most of the social sciences are dominated by narrative reviews. Critics argue that narrative reviews are often partial, making no effort to be comprehensive. The analyst first explicitly defines a set of quality criteria to be used in comprehensively sifting through a large volume of literature.
They must provide abundant, afternoons I often spent writing at my apartment or at the library on campus. These expensive and charged for databases are all human, rather than by getting stuck into seriously trying to solve them for yourself. It’s easy to copy across these few pages of relevant text as a succession of images, ask colleagues which papers they’d give to a rotation student to read and what the most important recent advances are in the field. Then work for another 60 minutes, 599 0 0 1 8. And doing so reliably day after day – if a system continues to produce energy which satisfies the user need it has not yet reached its end of life. Defined search combinations — generally produced by librarians I think, it is always tricky and may well then be impossible to adapt them or to do things differently.
The criteria are used to progressively filter down the field of relevant work, so as to focus progressively on just the best-conducted studies. The analyst then seeks to condense out precise effect estimates of how a given cause or type of intervention A affects phenomenon X at the focus of analysis. Systematic reviews are highly developed in medicine, and they have spread into social sciences recently via the health sciences. To be properly conducted systematic reviews also need to be comprehensive, which requires extensive searching in multiple databases. Systematic reviews are also tricky to do when a researcher’s understanding of issues and connections is not well developed.
They need a thorough understanding of how problems fields relate to each other, which is inherently very difficult to acquire at the start of projects. Anyone is far better informed on the realities of researching a given topic two or three years into it than one could hope to be at the outset. Formal literature reviews may also get considerably over-extended by modern university practices. But this enforced childhood can have adverse effects on the developments of PhD students’ research. It tends to feed the illusion that problems’ solutions are to be found by an extended literature hunt, rather than by getting stuck into seriously trying to solve them for yourself. In research projects principal investigators are more experienced and tend to be quicker off the mark. But here too literature reviews often expand as a way of bringing new research staff up to speed.
Finally, of course, once the design of an experiment is fixed, and its equipment and protocols have been defined in a particular way, it is always tricky and may well then be impossible to adapt them or to do things differently. This strengthens the rationale for an exhaustive initial literature search to surface all options and help choose the best-adapted procedures. Yet in STEM sciences being the first to achieve and publish a given experimental result or breakthrough is of critical importance. So a huge ongoing amount of researchers’ time still subsequently has to be dedicated to monitoring and keeping up with current literature.
It is quite common to see researchers looking surprised or even severely affronted when questioners at seminars or conferences, or even journal reviewers, ask that other literature or perspectives are taken into account. We live now in a digital era, in which the idea of a giant initial literature review is of fading relevance, except for properly conducted systematic reviews. We also need to consider how researchers actually work now, which is not very well presented by most institutional advice webpages or courses, generally produced by librarians I think, rather than by creative researchers themselves. Use Google search tools first and foremost. This may seem controversial to most librarians, who want researchers to use the proprietary bibliometic databases that they have expensively acquired, and sometimes researched about. But Google tools are clearly the best available in many dimensions and most disciplines, and they are easy to use in common ways, universally available on any internet PC or tablet, and free. You can search datewise in GS and it is usually fair enough to date restrict research searches to the last five or six years.
You need to try a wide range of permutations of possible search terms, and to refine the combinations looked for in line with what the GS results are throwing up. Once you have well-defined search combinations, a realistic goal then is to make sure that you skim though the first 200 or 300 results. Typically there are likely to be three levels of results. Essentially Google has now run around 10 million books through optical character readers so as to create online images of each page. For books that are out of copyright, Google makes available the full text for reading online, but the material cannot be downloaded in the free use version of the program. The text of most out of copyright books is also fully searchable, so you can easily find specific sentences, quotations, or words of interest anywhere in the book.
For books still in copyright how much information is viewable on Google Books depends on what agreement the book’s publisher has reached with them. But this still allows readers to word search the full text for terms or phrases, and so assess how much coverage there is of relevant material. The most expansive Google Books preview shows many full pages of the text, but leaves out some key chapters or sections. However, you can still use the word search across these omitted sections, and get a snippet idea of what’s covered outside the full text pages. In either the snippet view or full text preview you can’t copy any text from Google Books. Print Screen to capture your screen view and then copy that image into a Word archive file. If a book covers what you are interested in only briefly, it’s easy to copy across these few pages of relevant text as a succession of images, obviating the need to consult the text itself.