Critical literature review

Critical literature review

Order Description


The importance of the use of Health promotion is to support healthy lifestyle for dementia patients using a data established approach for early detection and
treatment. The key purpose is to pinpoint methods that can be employed by health professionals, local authorities, the public or leisure services to assist people to
classify the early symptoms of Dementia within education and healthy lifestyles.
The significance of the use of Health promotion for dementia is vital because over 850,000 people in the UK suffer from Dementia. Dementia can be defined as the
indications that arise when the brain suffers from certain diseases or conditions. This could be from memory loss, absence of cognitive thinking or problem solving are
also Signs of Dementia. In the United Kingdom, 62% of females suffer from Dementia paralleled to 38% of males. Recent analysis has revealed that it is because women
live longer than men and it also links with age.


The aims is to find out what people know about dementia and how they can be engaging in healthy lifestyle to reduce the risk of Dementia.
Aquestion shaped using the PICO framework allows for the application of an evidence basedin the clinical setting.

P- Adults Aged 55 and above

I-Healthy Diet


O- Reduction of Dementia


The databases used for this search were CINAHL and PubMed , in order to gain further information on the topic of interest These databases were found to be more
reliable and peer-reviewed articles were easily identified. The keyword used within the search was ‘healthy lifestyle’ and dementia patients. These databases was
selected as they were found to be suitable and appropriate for the purpose of this review. They were also consider be right sources where the information relevant to
nursing practice and the PICO question could be retrieved. However, some limitations within the search as there were a significant amount of literature that did not
relate to the research topic. Therefore, an inclusion and exclusion criteria was used to narrow the search further. The literature dates were reduced to articles that
were within 2008-2013, which gives current research evidence. Other inclusion criteria considered in research that was used were UK & Ireland based and the English
languages. The advanced search allows you to identify this criteria’s in both databases. Moreover to obtain literature more relevant, Boolean operators were used, this
includes ‘in’, ‘or’ and ‘and’ for instance ‘the care of dementia patients in hospital’ ,nursing home and community . This narrowed the search from 326 hits to 20 hits
from PubMed and 154 hits to 7 hits on CINAHL .

The electronic databases were CINAHIL, MEDLINE(1946 to present), PUBMED,GOOGLE SCHOLAR , BRITISH medical journals to review of secondary data in the public domain such
as current literature reviews on the subject and academic journals.

Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria is………. In this review the
Research papers were selected for review and critically appraised using the Critical
Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP 2013) framework. The numbers of potential searched articles will be pulled out after full articles has been obtained and accessed and
eligibility criteria will be applied using inclusion criteria will be used to exam the aims,methods,results and conclusions in the abstracts of the articles .Other
inclusion criteria will be used identify genders and exclusion from selection were those that made referenceto children and adolescents as the literature review is
interested in adults.and exclusion criteria which must be done between 2000 till present.

Information Sources
Description statistics and database information used that is logically explained in –depth. These databases were selected as they were found to be appropriate and well
suitable for the purpose of this review. they were also considered suitable sources where information relevant to nursing and the PICO question could be retrived. The
rationale for the choices of databases will outlines. In addition, evidence based approach will be employed to understand what has been in the past and currently.

In the UK, annual cost of dementia medication is estimated at £26.3 billion by Alzheimer’s Society, it is higher than the cost of cancer, heart disease and stroke (K.
Lahiri, 2013).Early deterrence will prevent the health and social care system’s money by decreasing the incidence and impact of dementia across the population
Support people to have lengthier, healthier lifestyle
Control on costs supplementary with non-communicable diseases such as heart disease or stroke (K. Lahiri, 2013).

Search Strategy
Key terms to search are the following:



Dementia and healthy diet

Promote healthy diet

Prevention of Dementia

Risk assessment for dementia

Data collection process

Current literature review will be used and the subject can be collected by using the above search sources above. The numbers of database will be pulled out from
British medical journals, America journals, medline, Pubmeds to applied inclusion and exclusion .In addition, evidence based approach will be employed to understand
what has been in the past and currently.


CINAHIL database

Medline database

Pubmed database

Google Scholar

British medical journals

Academic journals

Critical Appraisal of evidence

Appraisal of the quality of eligible data is important component of the literature review process. Following a literature search,it recommended that a three staged
process is carried out in order to critically appraise literature. This involves recognising important key points and themes as well as findings.

Research papers will be selected for review following

Heading and Subheading
Checklist item
Identify the title as a critical literature review
Structured summary
Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria; study appraisal and synthesis methods;
expected results; limitations; conclusions and projected implications of key findings.
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) or Setting,
Perspective, Intervention, Comparison and Evaluation (SPICE)
Eligibility criteria
Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, SPICE, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as
criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Information sources
Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last
Search Strategy
Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Study selection
State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in the review).
Critical Appraisal of evidence

Assessment of Study Quality: More weight given to high quality studies Use systematic approach – e.g. Checklist appropriate to study design (CASP, Joanna Briggs,
Cochrane Tool for Assessing the Risk of Bias)
Data collection process
Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., standard forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from
Data items
List and define all variables for which data are to be sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Synthesis of results
Describe the methods you intend to use to handle data and combine results of studies (narrative synthesis, thematic analysis.
Study selection
Give numbers of studies expected to be screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow
Study characteristics
Describer the expected characteristics for which data are to be extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period).
Expected results from Synthesis
Discuss expected results from your chosen analysis or synthesis method.
Discuss expected limitations for the study at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Provide a general interpretation of the expected results in the context of other evidence, and implication