| Course | DPH 870 Evidence-Based Practice and Advanced Research Methods |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Search strategy paper |
| Length | About 1,077 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 870 Module 4
Finding the Evidence Systematically: A Documented Search on Community Health Workers and Blood Pressure
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 870: Evidence-Based Practice and Advanced Research Methods
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Finding the Evidence Systematically: A Documented Search on Community Health Workers and Blood Pressure
Weak searching produces weak reviews. A documented search strategy records exactly where and how evidence was sought, so that readers can judge its completeness and another researcher could repeat it. This paper documents the search for the literature review in a capstone examining whether community health workers improve blood pressure outcomes for adults with hypertension.
Choosing the Review Type
Grant and Booth (2009) describe 14 types of review, from traditional literature reviews to systematic reviews, scoping reviews and umbrella reviews, each with different methods for searching, appraisal and synthesis. A capstone literature review is usually a systematized review: it borrows systematic methods for searching and appraisal but is conducted by one student without the full team a systematic review requires. Naming the type sets honest expectations.
The Question
The question uses population, intervention, comparison and outcome elements: among adults with hypertension, do interventions delivered by community health workers, compared with usual care, lead to better blood pressure control or lower readings? Secondary questions concern medication adherence, self-monitoring and health care use. Structured formats improve the precision of searches (Methley et al., 2014).
Concept Blocks
The search combines three concept blocks with AND, using OR within each block.
| Concept | Free-text terms | Subject headings |
|---|---|---|
| Community health workers | community health worker, lay health worker, promotora, health navigator, peer health educator | Community Health Workers |
| Hypertension | hypertension, high blood pressure, blood pressure control, systolic | Hypertension; Blood Pressure |
| Outcome and design | trial, randomized, quasi-experimental, cohort, evaluation | Randomized Controlled Trial; Evaluation Studies |
Databases and Gray Literature
Searches cover PubMed, CINAHL and a third health database from 2000 to the present. Gray literature includes federal and state health agency reports, dissertations and conference abstracts from public health meetings. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews are checked, and citation searching identifies newer papers that cite key studies.
Limits and Their Justification
The search is limited to English because of the student's language skills, to adults because the capstone concerns adults and to studies from 2000 onward because community health worker roles in chronic disease care expanded after that date. Each limit is stated so readers can judge its possible effect.
Screening
Screening occurs in two stages: titles and abstracts, then full texts, using written inclusion criteria. A second reviewer, a classmate, independently screens a random 20% of records at each stage; disagreements are discussed and criteria clarified. Agreement between reviewers is reported.
Flow of Records
Databases returned 1,082 records and other sources 64, for 1,146 in total. After 213 duplicates were removed, 933 titles and abstracts were screened and 861 excluded. Of 72 full texts assessed, 41 were excluded, most often for lacking a comparison group or blood pressure outcome, leaving 31 studies. Reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 statement, which recommends a flow diagram and full search strings (Page et al., 2021).
Testing the Strategy
Before finalizing, the strategy was tested against five studies already known to the student, including a major systematic review (Brownstein et al., 2007) and a randomized trial in primary care (Kangovi et al., 2018). All five were retrieved, suggesting adequate sensitivity. When a known study is missed, the terms that would have found it are added.
The Search Log
A search log records each database, the date, the exact string, limits applied and the number of results. The log will appear as an appendix to Chapter 2. Keeping it as the search proceeds is far easier than reconstructing it later.
Managing Records
Records are imported into reference management software, where duplicates are removed automatically and checked by hand. Screening decisions and reasons for exclusion are recorded so that the flow diagram can be produced accurately.
Updating the Search
Before the defense, the same strings will be run again to pick up recent studies. The update will use the same strings, and any new studies will be screened and added to the review.
Limitations
A single reviewer with partial second screening is less thorough than a full systematic review. Language limits may miss studies from Latin America, where promotora programs are common. These limitations will be stated in Chapter 2.
Working With a Librarian
A health sciences librarian reviewed the strategy and suggested adding terms such as promotora and navigator, used in programs serving Latino communities, and a subject heading for patient navigation. Librarians bring expertise in database syntax and controlled vocabularies that students rarely have, and their review is recognized as good practice.
Search Strings in Practice
The PubMed string combines each concept block with OR inside parentheses and joins blocks with AND, applying field tags for titles and abstracts and exploding subject headings. Equivalent strings are adapted for each database's vocabulary. The exact strings, including punctuation, appear in the appendix so that anyone can rerun them.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Studies are included if they evaluate an intervention delivered wholly or partly by community health workers for adults with hypertension, include a comparison group and report a blood pressure outcome. Studies are excluded if community health workers only recruited participants, if outcomes are not reported separately for hypertension or if the publication is a commentary without data.
Reviewer Agreement
The two reviewers agreed on 92% of the sampled titles and abstracts. Most disagreements concerned whether workers' roles were substantial enough to count as delivering the intervention; the criteria were clarified with examples, and agreement at full-text screening rose to 96%.
Why Gray Literature Matters
Many community health worker programs are evaluated by health departments or foundations and reported only in agency documents. Excluding these would bias the review toward academic programs, which may differ from those run by public agencies. Searching agency websites and asking program contacts for evaluations helps include this evidence.
From Search to Review
The search feeds directly into appraisal and synthesis. Each included study is logged with its design, population, intervention and outcomes, forming the first version of the synthesis matrix.
Time and Effort
The search, screening and record management took about six weeks of part-time work. Planning this time into the capstone schedule prevents rushed searches that miss evidence.
Conclusion
The documented search defines the review type, structures the question, combines concept blocks across three databases and gray literature, justifies limits, screens with partial double review and reports the flow of records from 1,146 to 31 studies. Testing against known studies and keeping a log make the search transparent and repeatable, giving the capstone's literature review a sound foundation.
References
Brownstein, J. N., Chowdhury, F. M., Norris, S. L., Horsley, T., Jack, L., Zhang, X., & Satterfield, D. (2007). Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of people with hypertension. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.011
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Norton, L., Harte, R., Zhao, X., Carter, T., Grande, D., & Long, J. A. (2018). Effect of community health worker support on clinical outcomes of low-income patients across primary care facilities: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(12), 1635-1643. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4630
Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., & Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, 14, Article 579. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
DPH 870 Module 4 instructions, in plain terms
Critical review of the literature is part of Aspen's DPH 870 description, and with the fourth module's prompt visible only to enrolled students, this example documents a full search. Search strategy assignments usually ask you to structure a question, list concepts and terms, name databases, justify limits, describe screening and report numbers. Name your review type honestly. Use a table for concept blocks. Include subject headings as well as free text. Search gray literature. Justify every limit. Report counts at each stage. Test the strategy against studies you already know should appear, and ask a librarian to review your strings before you finalize them. Note the years covered and why.
How this DPH 870 Module 4 example is built
About a thousand words run through nineteen headings, from choosing the review type and structuring the question to a three-column table of concept blocks. Databases and gray literature, limits, screening, the flow of records, testing, the search log, managing records, updating and limitations follow. A librarian's review, search strings, inclusion criteria, reviewer agreement, why gray literature matters, time and effort, and the path from search to review follow, with a margin comment on why naming the review type sets honest expectations. The conclusion summarizes a transparent, repeatable search. The concept table's three blocks reappear in the search strings section, so readers can see how each block became part of the final query. Screening numbers are reported at each stage so the flow diagram can be rebuilt from the text.
Reading the DPH 870 Module 4 grading rubric
Search papers are judged on reproducibility, appropriate sources, justified limits, transparent screening and accurate counts. Grant and Booth's typology, Methley and colleagues on question formats, PRISMA 2020 and two test studies make up its APA reference list. The concept table is complete. Counts at each stage add up. Partial double screening with reported agreement shows rigor appropriate to a student review, which instructors value. The paper also explains why agency reports matter for this topic, since many programs are evaluated outside academic journals. Its limitations section names the language restriction's likely effect on studies of promotora programs. Reviewer agreement is reported.
DPH 870 Module 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often describe searches vaguely, omit subject headings or skip gray literature. Others report only the final number of studies. Keep every string exactly as run. Give counts for every stage. Include agency reports where programs are often evaluated. Ask a librarian to review your strategy. Test against known studies. If database syntax is confusing, a tutor can help you build and test strings. Close with when you will rerun the search, and keep the log current as you go so you never have to reconstruct it from memory. Record the date of every search. Keep strings in an appendix exactly as run.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DPH 870 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 870 Module 1: The Steps of Scientific Research
- DPH 870 Module 2: Formulating the Research Problem
- DPH 870 Module 3: Matching Designs to the Problem
- DPH 870 Module 5: Critical Appraisal of Key Studies
- DPH 870 Module 6: A Synthesis Matrix by Theme
- DPH 870 Module 7: Writing the Literature Review Argument
- DPH 870 Module 8: Chapter 2 of the Capstone
- DPH 805 Module 4: Systems Thinking and a Systems Map
- DPH 801 Module 6: Theory-Based Intervention Design
- DPH 840 Module 2: Environmental Scan and Strategic Analysis
- DPH 830 Module 7: International Organizations and Governance
DPH 870 Module 4 questions, answered
What does DPH 870 Module 4 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 870 covers critical review of the literature, so a documented search strategy is a typical assignment. Follow your classroom prompt.
What is a systematized review?
A review that uses some systematic methods, such as structured searching and appraisal, without meeting every standard of a full systematic review.
How do you test a search strategy?
Check whether it retrieves studies you already know should be included, and add terms if it misses any.
Where can I find a free DPH 870 Module 4 sample paper?
This page presents the documented search strategy with a table of concept blocks, terms and subject headings.
What goes into a documented search strategy in DPH 870 Module 4?
The review type, a structured question, concept blocks with terms and headings, databases and gray literature, justified limits, screening procedures and counts at each stage.