DPH 870 Module 7 Writing the Literature Review Argument Example

Making the Case: Writing the Argument of a Literature Review on Community Health Workers

Student Name

Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University

DPH 870: Evidence-Based Practice and Advanced Research Methods

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Making the Case: Writing the Argument of a Literature Review on Community Health Workers

A literature review is not a list of what others have found; it is an argument that leads readers from what is known to what is not, and to why the capstone matters. This paper explains how to write that argument for a review asking whether community health workers help people with high blood pressure, drawing on a synthesis matrix of 31 studies.

The Central Claim

The review's central claim is: community health workers improve blood pressure outcomes in varied settings, but evidence on programs run by local health departments, on which program components matter and on effects on disparities is limited, so a local evaluation is needed. Every section of the review supports some part of this claim.

The Moves of the Argument

The table shows the moves of the argument in order.

Paragraph Structure

Each paragraph begins with a claim, supports it with evidence from several studies and ends with analysis explaining what the evidence means for the review question. Paragraphs that begin with a study's authors, such as Smith and colleagues found, tend to become summaries; paragraphs that begin with an idea tend to synthesize.

Weighing Evidence

Not all evidence carries equal weight. The review states when conclusions rest on randomized trials, when they rest on observational studies and how certain they are. Using GRADE language, such as moderate-certainty evidence, helps readers understand strength without re-reading each study (Guyatt et al., 2008).

Handling Contradictions

When studies disagree, the review explains possible reasons, such as differences in program intensity, population or outcome measurement, rather than choosing the convenient result. Contradictions often point to questions the capstone can address. A short table comparing the conflicting studies' designs and populations often makes the explanation clearer than prose alone.

A Sample Paragraph

Community health workers appear to improve blood pressure through several pathways. Reviews report gains in medication adherence and appointment keeping (Brownstein et al., 2007), and a randomized trial emphasized help with social needs tailored to patients' goals (Kangovi et al., 2018). Programs in lower-income countries have relied more on screening and follow-up (Jeet et al., 2017). Few studies isolate which of these pathways matters most, a gap the capstone's visit-level data can begin to address.

Why the Sample Works

The paragraph opens with a claim, draws on three studies of different types, notes differences across settings and ends by connecting the evidence to the capstone. It synthesizes rather than summarizes, and its final sentence moves the argument forward.

Signposting

Readers follow arguments more easily when told where they are going. An opening paragraph previews the review's sections, transitions link sections to the central claim and a closing summary restates what has been established and what remains unknown. Headings that state the point of each section, not only its topic, also help.

Voice and Hedging

A scholarly voice is confident where evidence is strong and cautious where it is weak. Phrases such as studies consistently show or evidence suggests should match the certainty of the evidence. Overclaiming undermines credibility; excessive hedging obscures the argument.

Choosing a Review Structure

Reviews can be organized chronologically, methodologically or thematically. Grant and Booth (2009) note that review types differ in their approach to synthesis, and a thematic structure suits a capstone review because it follows the synthesis matrix and leads naturally to gaps.

Revising for Synthesis

A useful revision test is to highlight every sentence that describes a single study. If most of a paragraph is highlighted, it is summary; the paragraph should be rewritten to lead with an idea and compare studies. Reading only the first sentences of paragraphs should reveal the argument.

Reading Critically While Writing

Writing the argument often sends the writer back to the sources. Greenhalgh (1997) suggests always asking what question a study addressed and whether its design fit; returning to these questions while writing keeps claims tied to what studies can actually show.

Introducing and Closing Sections

Each section of the review opens with a sentence stating what the section will show and closes with a sentence stating what it has shown and how that moves the argument. These framing sentences act as a map for readers and a check for the writer: if the closing sentence does not advance the central claim, the section may not belong.

Using Tables and Figures

A summary table of key studies, organized by theme, can present details that would clutter the text, such as sample sizes and settings. The text then focuses on patterns and meaning, referring readers to the table for specifics.

Citing Well

Good citation practice supports the argument. Several studies can be cited together to support a common finding, while a specific result is attributed to its source. Secondary citations, citing a study through another author's description, should be avoided; reading the original prevents misrepresentation.

Feedback Before Final Draft

A draft review shared with the chair and a peer often reveals where the argument is unclear. Asking readers to state the central claim after reading tests whether the argument has come through.

Ending the Review

The review's final section should leave readers convinced that the capstone is needed. It restates what is known, names the gaps precisely and states how the capstone's questions address them, leading directly into the methods chapter. A strong ending prevents the review from trailing off into a list of future research needs unrelated to the study.

Avoiding Common Pitfalls

Common pitfalls include overusing direct quotations, citing studies without evaluating them, presenting only supportive evidence and losing the central claim in detail. Checking each section against the argument table helps keep the review focused.

Length and Proportion

Sections should be proportional to their importance. The evidence on effects and mechanisms deserves the most space; context and costs deserve less. Planning approximate lengths for each move keeps the review balanced and prevents early sections from consuming the page limit.

Conclusion

A literature review argument moves from context to what works, how and for whom, the quality of evidence, what is unknown and why the capstone is needed. Claim-led paragraphs, weighted evidence, honest treatment of contradictions, signposting and calibrated voice turn a collection of studies into a persuasive case.

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

Greenhalgh, T. (1997). How to read a paper: Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about). BMJ, 315(7102), 243-246. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7102.243

Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008). GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 336(7650), 924-926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD

Jeet, G., Thakur, J. S., Prinja, S., & Singh, M. (2017). Community health workers for non-communicable diseases prevention and control in developing countries: Evidence and implications. PLOS ONE, 12(7), Article e0180640. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180640

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