| Course | PAC 799A Addiction Studies Capstone |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Search strategy and synthesis plan |
| Length | About 1,078 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PAC 799A Module 5
Finding and Weighing the Evidence: A Search Strategy and Synthesis Plan for Chapter 2
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PAC 799A: Addiction Studies Capstone
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Finding and Weighing the Evidence: A Search Strategy and Synthesis Plan for Chapter 2
Chapter 2 of Avery's capstone will review the research on which the evaluation of naloxone kits at Pine Hollow County Detention Center rests. As in earlier modules, Avery and the Georgia jail are inventions for the course; the methods sources are real. This plan sets out what kind of review Chapter 2 will be, how the literature was searched and screened and how the studies will be weighed and organized.
Choosing a Type of Review
Grant and Booth (2009) distinguished fourteen kinds of review by how they search, appraise, synthesize and analyze. Systematic reviews search exhaustively and appraise formally but take a team months. Traditional literature reviews are flexible but often do not explain how sources were chosen. Between them sit approaches that borrow systematic features without the full burden. For a single student with two terms and four research questions spanning epidemiology, program evaluation and behavioral science, a structured narrative review fits best: it will state its search strings and inclusion rules and report its screening, while synthesizing narratively by theme.
Databases and Search Strings
Avery searched three databases in the first week of the term: PubMed, PsycInfo and Criminal Justice Abstracts. The core string combined three concepts. For naloxone: naloxone OR Narcan OR "take-home naloxone" OR "overdose education". For overdose: overdose OR "opioid-related death" OR "drug-related death". For the setting: prison OR jail OR incarceration OR "release from custody" OR reentry OR re-entry. A second, separate search for the framework combined default OR "opt-out" OR "opt out" with health OR consent OR testing. Limits were English language and publication from 2000 onward, except for foundational studies found through reference lists.
Inclusion and Exclusion Rules
Rules were set before screening. Studies were included if they reported original data or systematic reviews on overdose after release from custody, on effectiveness or uptake of take-home naloxone or on opt-out defaults in health decisions. Studies were excluded if they were commentaries without data, concerned only hospital naloxone use by clinicians or concerned populations under eighteen. Gray literature from government agencies was recorded separately and will be used for context only.
Reporting the Screening
Page et al. (2021) updated the PRISMA statement, a guideline for reporting systematic reviews that includes a flow diagram showing how many records were identified, removed as duplicates, screened, assessed in full and included, with reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage. Although Chapter 2 is not a systematic review, borrowing the flow diagram makes the search transparent.
| Stage | Records |
|---|---|
| Identified across three databases | 486 |
| After removing duplicates | 391 |
| Excluded on title and abstract | 328 |
| Read in full | 63 |
| Excluded after full reading, with reasons: no original data (11), wrong population (9), hospital setting only (6), other (3) | 29 |
| Included | 34 |
Why Three Databases
Each database covers a different part of the question. PubMed indexes the medical and public health literature on overdose and naloxone. PsycInfo covers behavioral research, including the defaults studies and research on stigma and decision making. Criminal Justice Abstracts captures studies published in corrections and criminology journals that the other two miss. Avery ran a test search in Google Scholar as well but did not use it as a formal source, because its results cannot be reproduced reliably and it does not allow precise limits; it served instead to check that no well-known study had been missed.
Checking the Search
To test whether the strings were working, Avery listed six studies known in advance to be relevant, including the Washington State release cohort and the Massachusetts naloxone time series, and checked that the searches retrieved them. Five of the six appeared. The sixth, indexed under "drug-related death" with "prison" but not "release," led Avery to add custody terms to the string before the final run.
Weighing the Evidence
Not every included study deserves equal weight. Randomized trials are rare in this literature; most studies are cohorts, before-and-after comparisons and time series. McDonald and Strang (2016) faced the same problem in their review of take-home naloxone and used the Bradford Hill criteria, which ask about features such as strength of association, consistency across studies, temporality, a dose-response gradient and plausibility, to judge whether observational evidence supported a causal effect. Chapter 2 will borrow their approach where causal claims are at stake, as with naloxone and deaths, and will record for each study its design, sample size, comparison and main risks of bias.
The Synthesis Matrix
Before drafting, Avery is entering each included study into a matrix with columns for author and year, country and setting, design, sample, intervention or exposure, outcomes, main findings, strengths and weaknesses and the theme or research question to which it relates. The matrix will make it possible to compare studies within a theme and to see where evidence is thick or thin.
Outline of Chapter 2
Chapter 2 will be organized in four themes, each tied to the research questions. The first will cover overdose risk after release from custody and why it is concentrated in the first weeks. The second will cover the effectiveness of take-home naloxone, weighed with the Bradford Hill approach. The third will cover naloxone distribution in jails and prisons, including what is known about uptake and refusal, the theme most directly tied to RQ1 and RQ2. The fourth will cover defaults and opt-out designs in health decisions, the basis for RQ3. A closing section will state the gaps and how the project addresses them.
Handling Gray Literature
Government and agency reports, such as state overdose surveillance summaries and guidance from health departments on naloxone in corrections, were not counted among the thirty-four studies. They will appear in Chapter 2 only to describe context, such as how many jails in a region offer kits, and never as evidence of effect. Keeping them separate prevents a well-written report from carrying more weight than its methods justify.
Search Log and Updating
Each search is saved with its date, database, string and number of results. Avery will rerun the searches at the start of PAC 799B, so that studies published during the project can be added before the final manuscript.
Conclusion
The plan commits Chapter 2 to a structured narrative review, chosen with Grant and Booth's typology, a repeatable search reported in a PRISMA-style flow and an appraisal approach borrowed from McDonald and Strang. The synthesis matrix and four-theme outline will help the chapter compare studies and lead to the gaps the project addresses.
References
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
McDonald, R., & Strang, J. (2016). Are take-home naloxone programmes effective? Systematic review utilizing application of the Bradford Hill criteria. Addiction, 111(7), 1177-1187. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13326
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
PAC 799A Module 5 instructions, in plain terms
The fifth module of PAC 799A usually asks for a literature search strategy and a plan for synthesizing what you find. The Module 5 page in your Aspen course sets the requirements; Pine Hollow is fictional. Name the type of review and justify it. List databases, search terms and limits so that the search could be repeated. Set inclusion and exclusion rules before screening. Report how many records were found, screened and included. Explain how you will appraise study quality. Describe the synthesis method and outline the themes that will organize Chapter 2. Cite methods sources in APA 7, and keep a dated search log. If you borrow tools from systematic reviewing, such as a flow diagram, say so and explain why, so readers do not mistake the review for something it is not.
Inside the PAC 799A Module 5 example
Avery searched PubMed, PsycInfo and Criminal Justice Abstracts with strings combining naloxone, overdose and release terms. Grant and Booth's typology of fourteen review types points to a structured narrative review. Page and colleagues' BMJ reporting guideline shapes the flow: 486 records identified, 391 after duplicates, 63 read in full and 34 included. McDonald and Strang's Addiction review shows how to judge causal evidence. A synthesis matrix will record each study's design, setting, sample, outcomes and findings. Chapter 2 will run through four themes, from overdose after release to defaults in health choices. A plan to rerun the searches before the final manuscript keeps the review current through both terms.
Reading the PAC 799A Module 5 grading rubric
Search plans earn credit for a repeatable search, rules set before screening, transparent reporting and a synthesis organized by theme. This example states its review type and the reason for it. The search strings are given in full, with databases and limits, so another person could repeat them. Inclusion rules are explicit, and the screening flow reports numbers at each stage, following PRISMA. Appraisal is planned with named criteria. The synthesis matrix and the four-theme outline show how the review will compare studies rather than summarize them. A dated search log supports transparency. The plan to rerun searches during the second term shows awareness that a review written early in a long project can go out of date before submission.
PAC 799A Module 5 help from the desk
Search plans often describe a search too vaguely to repeat. Give databases, exact strings, dates and limits. Set inclusion rules before you screen, not after. Report numbers at each stage of screening. Plan appraisal; not all studies deserve equal weight. Build a synthesis matrix before writing, with columns for design, setting, sample, outcomes and findings. Organize the review by themes tied to your research questions. Ask a librarian to check your strings. Save every search with its date, because databases change and you may need to rerun the search before the final manuscript. Note why each full-text article was excluded as you go; reconstructing reasons weeks later is slow and unreliable.
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 PAC 799A and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PAC 799A Module 1: Choosing a Capstone Topic
- PAC 799A Module 2: Problem, Purpose and Significance
- PAC 799A Module 3: Research Questions and Definitions
- PAC 799A Module 4: Chapter 1: Introduction
- PAC 799A Module 6: Chapter 2: Literature Review
- PAC 799A Module 7: Planning the Method
- PAC 799A Module 8: Defending the Method
- PAC 610 Module 1: Neurons, Neurotransmitters and History
- PAC 411 Module 5: Diversity, Social Justice and Human Rights
- PAC 499 Module 2: Problem Statement and Research Questions
- ADC 510 Module 4: Physiological and Psychological Effects
PAC 799A Module 5 questions, answered
What does PAC 799A Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's PAC 799A covers the literature search and synthesis plan in this module, so a repeatable search strategy and a plan for organizing Chapter 2 are typical. Look at your Module 5 prompt.
What is a structured narrative review?
A narrative review that adds systematic features, such as stated search strings, inclusion rules and a screening flow, without the full apparatus of a systematic review.
What is PRISMA 2020?
A reporting guideline by Page and colleagues for systematic reviews, including a flow diagram of records identified, screened and included, which other reviews can borrow.
Where can I find a free PAC 799A Module 5 sample paper?
This page has the full search and synthesis plan: databases, search strings, a screening flow and a four-theme outline for Chapter 2.
What is a synthesis matrix?
A table recording each study's key features and findings, used to compare studies across themes before writing a literature review.