Case Study

CAM411A_Assessment 1_Literature Review Page 1 of 7
ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Subject Code and Title CAM411A Advanced Nutritional Medicine
Assessment Assessment 2: Literature Review
Individual/Group Individual
Length 2500 words +/- 10%
Learning Outcomes a) Critically appraise scientific research to the
therapeutic value of macro, micro and phytonutrients
b) Compile updated knowledge on nutritional
biochemistry and therapeutics based on current
scientific evidence
c) Develop and assess advanced nutritional approaches
for complex disease states
Submission
Weighting 50%%
Total Marks 100 marks
Context:
Using the initial research compiled in the Literature Review Proposal, write a literature review that
attempts to answer the research question presented in Assessment 1. Through researching,
summarizing and critically analyzing the literature available, your literature review will aim to
achieve the following:
• Identify the gaps in the current knowledge of your chosen area
• Identify opposing views
• Critically analyze the available literature through the development of themes
• Demonstrate the depth of your knowledge and understanding within the area of chosen
research
• Answer your research question
Instructions:
Students are required to write a literature review, based on the proposal submitted in assessment
1, by reviewing, critically evaluating and appraising the current literature, write a clear and fully
referenced literature review.
The literature review must be compiled from a search of the most recent (5-10 years) published
literature about your topic and therapeutic(s). Your goal is to identify and critically review 6 to 9
pieces of primary research on your chosen topic and therapeutic.
CAM411A_Assessment 1_Literature Review Page 2 of 7
It is expected that a minimum of 20 primary sources will be used in this literature review (see
below).
Select appropriate primary research articles for inclusion in the literature review. If you find many
similar studies on any aspect of the topic, restrict your discussion to the highest quality studies
only. If there are only poor-quality studies available, use the best of these but comment on their
deficiencies.
It’s a good idea to start with meta-analysis and systematic reviews (where available) and work your
way down through the research. Identify trials that were excluded and evaluate why. Look at
more recent research and critically evaluate that too.
Depending upon your therapeutic choice, there may be limited human studies available, your
research piece may then include some cellular studies, animal studies and any trials that connect
the disease pathophysiology and selected nutritional therapeutic intervention.
Please ensure to reference according to college guidelines, paraphrase and acknowledge author(s)
ideas. Note any statement of fact, assertion or theory must be substantiated with a citation from
the literature.
Literature Review Format
Cover page
Including: Statement of Authorship
A signed statement, as follows: “The material in this research project is original, except
where due acknowledgement has been given, and has not been accepted for the award of
any other degree or diploma. To the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no
material previously published or written by another person, except where due
acknowledgement is made in the text”. Signed……………………………..
Contents page
Abbreviations page
1.0 Introduction
A general overview of the condition and selected therapeutic.
2.0 The condition
2.1 Prevalence
2.2 Aetiology
2.3 Pathophysiology
2.4 Medical Treatment
A description of the anatomical, physiological and biochemical factors that are present in the
condition disorder you have chosen and a discussion of the information you have found in the
literature about various causes of the presenting pathophysiology. You should cover genetic,
environmental, lifestyle, nutritional, psychological and any other relevant factors. Medical
treatment (chemo &/or radio) or other.
3.0 Proposed Nutritional Therapeutic
3.1 Background/introduction
3.2 Actions/Indications
3.3 Mechanism of action in chosen condition
CAM411A_Assessment 1_Literature Review Page 3 of 7
Introduce the therapeutic intervention and its mechanisms of action as they relate to the
pathophysiology of the chosen condition.
4.0 Literature review
4.1 Findings
4.2 Results – as a table appendix outlining the methodology of each study
4.3 Discussion – academically written critical analysis of the research reviewed
This should be the major part of your research project – a discussion of the information you
have found in the literature. The selected references should be critically analyzed for validly
and efficacy. Please also indicate any safety, toxicological or interaction data where relevant.
5.0 Conclusion
Give your conclusion based on the evidence presented. Do not put new material in your
conclusion. Based on your findings discuss any future implications for research.
References (not included in word count)

  • A list of all studies and texts referred to in your literature review.
  • The accepted college method is the APA system.
  • Live links for each article must be included – either URL or DOI
    Presentation
    Format your literature review using an APA report writing style. Double spaced, times new roman, size 12 font.
    Use appropriate headings and sub- headings throughout as this is a report not an essay.
    Work submitted for assessment is expected to meet the requirements of satisfactory presentation, referencing
    and expression, including spelling, punctuation, sentence structure and paragraphing and text structure. Only
    original work will be accepted.
    Please submit a SafeAssign report (PDF) along with your completed literature review (doc). If both documents are
    not submitted the assessment will not be considered submitted.
    Sources
    Information may be sourced from primary, secondary and tertiary sources:
    Primary sources: Include original research articles, systematic reviews and meta-analysis from
    high quality journals, peer reviewed journals.
    A minimum 20 primary sources are expected for this literature review
    Secondary sources: Include general review articles, summaries, abstracts of primary source articles.
    Tertiary sources: Include recognised, authoritative textbooks.
    Students are strongly recommended to:
    o Use primary sources wherever possible and use the most recently published information you can
    find.
    o Use secondary sources only where primary sources cannot be accessed.
    o Use tertiary sources only when primary or secondary source journals are not available. All texts
    should be by experts recognised in their particular field. Make sure you consult the latest edition of
    the text.
    o Never use lecture notes, manufacturers’ information sheets, magazine or newspaper articles,
    anecdotal reports, non-reputable internet/web sites, self-help groups, practitioners’
    recommendations.
    CAM411A_Assessment 1_Literature Review Page 4 of 7
    o Use websites as a guide to primary sources.
    o Websites should not be used unless they belong to reputable sources e.g. Government,
    official organizations or recognised medical association journal sites.
    CAM405A_Assessment 1_Literature Review
    Page 5 of 7
    Learning Rubric
    Content Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction
    Overall presentation
    • format & structure
    • spelling & grammar
    • academic language &
    writing style
    Some structure relevant to
    Literature Review Proposal.
    Key sections may be
    omitted.
    Structure supports a
    Literature Review Proposal.
    Language and writing style is
    mostly appropriate.
    Structure is clear and supports
    a Literature Review Proposal.
    Language and writing style is
    appropriate.
    Structure is clear and coherent
    which enhances the
    presentation of a Literature
    Review Proposal. Demonstrates
    an understanding of language
    and style appropriate to
    academic writing.
    Clear & coherent structure
    which enriches the presentation
    of a Literature Review Proposal.
    Demonstrates an insightful
    understanding of language and
    style appropriate to academic
    writing.
    0-2 2.5 3 4 5
    Introduction Inadequate description of
    health issue and
    intervention topic. Rationale
    for the review explained
    poorly or missing. Search
    strategies are limited in
    scope. Inclusion/exclusion
    criteria may be missing.
    Basic-level description of
    health issue and intervention
    topic. Rationale for the review
    is explained, although several
    missing points, or not clearly
    described. Search strategies
    are basic and limited in
    scope. Inclusion/exclusion
    criteria may be missing.
    Moderate-level description of
    health issue and intervention
    topic. Rationale for the review
    is explained, as is the literature
    review scope. Search
    strategies are adequate,
    although could be more
    comprehensive.
    Inclusion/exclusion criteria may
    be missing.
    Good-level, clear description of
    health issue and intervention
    topic. Rationale for the review is
    clearly explained, as is the
    literature review scope.
    Demonstrates a comprehensive
    approach to literature search
    strategies and effective use of
    inclusion/exclusion criteria.
    High-level, clear description of
    health issue and intervention
    topic. Rationale for the review
    clearly explained, as is the
    literature review scope.
    Demonstrates a comprehensive
    approach to literature search
    strategies and effective use of
    inclusion/exclusion criteria.
    0-4.5 5.0-6.0 6.5-7 7.5-8 8.5-10
    Selected condition and therapeutic
    • Prevalence
    • Aetiology
    • Pathophysiology
    • Background
    • Actions/indications
    • Mechanisms of action
    Limited understanding of
    the condition, its treatment
    and the chosen therapeutic.
    Little to no discussion of
    interactions and
    recommendations
    Has demonstrated a basic
    understanding of conditions,
    medical treatment and
    chosen therapeutic.
    Discussion of interactions and
    recommendations.
    Demonstrates a solid
    understanding of the condition,
    medical treatment and the
    chosen therapeutic. Discussion
    of interactions and
    recommendations with some
    analysis.
    Demonstrates a thorough
    understanding of the condition,
    medical treatment and chosen
    therapeutic which is highlighted
    in the detailed discussion,
    evidencing current
    understandings.
    Detailed discussion of
    interactions and
    recommendations, analysis and
    critical thinking demonstrated.
    Demonstrates an insightful
    understanding of condition,
    medical treatment and chosen
    therapeutic incorporating
    current research in the
    discussion and analysis.
    Highly accurate, clinically
    appropriate and relevant.
    Insightful discussion of
    interactions and
    recommendations, high level of
    analysis and critical thinking
    demonstrated.

0-9.5 10-12.5 13-14.5 15-16.5 17-20
CAM405A_Assessment 1_Literature Review
Page 6 of 7
Discussion & Analysis of the
Literature
The literature being
reviewed is discussed and
analysed inadequately.
Some key details are
included; however, many
details are missing,
including poor
demonstration of critical
thinking skills.
The literature being reviewed
is discussed and analysed to
a basic academic level. Some
key details are included,
however, many details are
missing or not clearly
explained. Basic analysis,
research and critical thinking
skills demonstrated.
The literature being reviewed is
discussed and analysed to a
moderate academic level. Most
key details are addressed
including the study design,
relevant statistics and results.
However, some details are
missing or not clearly
explained. Moderate-level
analysis, research and critical
thinking skills demonstrated.
The literature being reviewed is
discussed and analysed to a
high academic level. Key details
are addressed including the
study design, relevant statistics
and results. Some minor
aspects of above could be
improved. High-level analysis,
research and critical thinking
skills demonstrated.
The literature being reviewed is
discussed and analysed to a
high academic level. Key details
are addressed including the
study design, relevant statistics
and results. High-level analysis,
research and critical thinking
skills demonstrated.
0-14.5 15-19 19.5-22 22.5-24.5 25-30
Substantiation
• Quality
• Currency
• Relevance
The literature review is
inadequately substantiated
by appropriate use of up-todate primary and secondary
references. There may be a
lack of high-quality primary
references and/or overreliance on secondary
resources. Inadequate
critical thinking. No or some
in-text references are
missing.
Less than 20 primary
articles used.
To a basic level, the literature
review is substantiated by
appropriate use of up-to-date
primary and secondary
references. There may be a
lack of high-quality primary
references and/or overreliance on secondary
resources. Basic level of
critical thinking. No or some
in-text references are
missing.
To a moderate level, the
literature review is
substantiated by appropriate
use of up-to-date primary and
secondary references.
Substantiation demonstrates a
moderate level of research,
insight and critical thinking.
No or some in-text references
are missing.
The literature review is
substantiated by appropriate
use of up-to-date primary and
secondary references.
Substantiation demonstrates
comprehensive, insightful and
relevant research and critical
thinking. Secondary resources
are used minimally and only to
back up foundation knowledge.
No in-text references are
missing. Some minor aspects of
above could be improved.
The literature review is
substantiated by appropriate
use of up-to-date primary and
secondary references.
Substantiation demonstrates
comprehensive, insightful and
relevant research and critical
thinking. Secondary resources
are used minimally and only to
back up foundation knowledge.
No in-text references are
missing.
0-9.5 10-12.5 13-14.5 15-16.5 17-20
Conclusion
• Gaps in research and
conflicting information
Conclusion is brief or not
present. Little to no
discussion on key content.
Conclusion is basic. Identifies
some issues relating to
nutritional clinical practice,
although lacking key details.
Gaps in research may or may
not be identified. No or some
new material is introduced.
Conclusion is moderately well
structured and detailed.
Identifies key issues relating to
nutritional clinical practice,
although some may be
missing. Gaps in research
identified to a moderate level.
No or some new material is
introduced.
Conclusion is concise, wellstructured and detailed.
Identifies key issues relating to
nutritional clinical practice.
Gaps in research identified, and
no new material is introduced.
Some minor aspects of above
could be improved.
Conclusion is concise, wellstructured and detailed.
Identifies key issues relating to
nutritional clinical practice.
Gaps in research identified, and
no new material is introduced.
0-4.5 5.0-6.0 6.5-7 7.5-8 8.5-10
CAM405A_Assessment 1_Literature Review
Page 7 of 7
Referencing (5%) Incorrect referencing style
and or many errors may be
present.
In-text references and
reference list adhere to
appropriate referencing style
at least half of the time.
In-text references and
reference list adhere to
appropriate referencing style
most of the time. Some errors.
In-text references and reference
list adhere to appropriate
referencing style. No errors.
Some minor aspects of
referencing could be improved.
In-text references and reference
list adhere to appropriate
referencing style. No errors.
0-2 2.5 3 4 5
Total: / 100

Leave a Reply