1. No category

WHAT IS A MASTERS DISSERTATION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SCIENCES?
1
Introduction
The Graduate School in the Department of Health Sciences provides an exciting, vibrant and
multidisciplinary learning environment. It covers the whole spectrum of health research, from clinical trials
to health policy and inequalities and you will be trained in rigorous scientific methods as applied to
research in health and healthcare.
For the award of a Masters you will take taught modules and complete a dissertation. At the University of
York, assessment leading to awards is based on the principles of: equity, openness, clarity and consistency.
The purpose of this document is to ensure these principles are adhered to in that there is a clear
understanding of what constitutes a Masters dissertation in the Department of Health Sciences for the
following programmes:





MSc Applied Health Research
Masters in Public Health
MSc Health Sciences
MSc Haematopathalogy
MSc Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Advanced Clinical Practice
It is important to understand, however, that a Masters dissertation undertaken in this Department will be
flexible and diverse and therefore we cannot be too prescriptive about what constitutes a dissertation. Nor
can this document be totally comprehensive of all the possible research methods that could be considered.
The following provides advice and guidance on what is to be expected from you when undertaking your
dissertation.
2
Types of Masters Degree
Master's degrees are often described as either 'taught' or 'research' depending on the relative proportion
of structured learning and independent study making up the award. In a third broad 'professional' or
'practice' category, the predominant mode of delivery is through work-based or practice-related learning.
The Masters programmes referred to here are ‘taught’ degrees but the guidelines for presentation of a
dissertation for a Masters (by research) apply and are available at
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/gso/exams/thesis/requirements.htm
Updated by DDC 12/09/13
Page 1 of 10
3
General requirements of a Masters dissertation
Undertaking a Masters dissertation will depend on your desires and ambitions and can reflect the tradition
and needs of particular disciplines and professions. It will provide you with an opportunity to undertake a
piece of individual research to examine an aspect of the subject of your interest and with reference to the
documents below will allow the assessment of your skills and ability to:
 work independently with the support of an experienced academic as your supervisor to manage a
challenging, complex and extended piece of work;
 narrow, define, and focus a research area of your choice;
 to have a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems
and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of your academic discipline,
field of study or area of professional practice;
 to have originality in the application of that knowledge;
 read widely and critically reflect on written research in an appropriate and thorough manner;
 think through varying methodological approaches and adopt the necessary approaches suitable to
the topic being researched;
 conduct research and provide, in written format, an in-depth, critical and reflective account of the
results;
 to communicate conclusions clearly and, when appropriate, to propose new hypotheses.
1) University of York “Guide to Assessment, Standards Marking and Feedback 2011-2012” which is
available at www.york.ac.uk/about/departments/support-and-admin/registry-services/guide
2) Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education “Master’s degree characteristics”
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/informationandguidance/pages/masters-degreecharacteristics.aspx
When undertaking your Masters dissertation you should consider the Department’s marking criteria which
can be found at https://www.york.ac.uk/healthsciences/student-intranet/exam-assess/markgrid/
4
Types of dissertation
Whether you choose to do a dissertation that focuses on an issue from your professional practice or a topic
provided by a supervisor in Health Sciences it is likely that the piece of research that you undertake will fall
into what can be described as a review of the literature or empirical research. The following provides
guidance on the minimum requirements to consider when undertaking research within these two broad
categories. Examples are provided of methodological design to consider, typical research questions that
could be answered using these approaches and useful references.
It is important to be aware that whilst your ideas for a dissertation topic may be addressing very valuable
questions, they may be overly ambitious within the time constraints of a Masters course. You will be
advised of this at an early stage and asked to look closely at your research question and approach to
answering it. In particular, the idea of performing some empirical (or primary) research may be very
appealing to you but it is important to bear in mind that supervisors will often be able to give insights into
the hidden complexities that some research projects pose within the workload and time constraints of a
Masters course.
Updated by DDC 12/09/13
Page 2 of 10
4.1
Literature reviews
Three types of literature review may be considered as suitable for a Masters dissertation. These are:
systematic reviews; non-systematic reviews; and overviews of reviews. Each will now be considered in
turn. The minimum criteria that you should consider when undertaking any type of literature review for
your dissertation are:
 presentation of a clear and feasible review question;
 explanation of the underpinning theoretical base and/or rationale for the need for the review;
 description of the rationale for the characteristics of primary studies, e.g., types of participants
recruited, intervention(s) and comparators evaluated and outcomes of interest (this structure
relates to clinical effectiveness questions and may require adaptation for other types of review
questions);
 presentation of the rationale for design of included primary studies;
 presentation of a structured plan for searching the literature;
 a structured results section;
 discussion of findings together with recommendations for future research/practice, presentation of
a dissemination plan designed to inform clinical or other professional practice (if appropriate) and
concluding comments.
 evidence of critical and analytical treatment of the primary material;
 transparent reporting of review methods, processes and findings.
4.1.1 Systematic reviews
Systematic review is a methodologically rigorous method of undertaking literature review based on
scientific principles in order to minimise bias. The aim is usually to arrive at some sort of estimate of effect
(or possibly a range of estimates) in order to answer a focused question. It is normally expected that a
dissertation based on a systematic review will include the following:
 a focused and addressable research question, expanded into aims and objectives as appropriate;
 background section explaining the topic and justification of the need for the review;
 a methods section incorporating justification of review methods and citing of appropriate
methodological literature, with the following sub-sections;
o pre-specified selection criteria for primary studies;
o a comprehensive search strategy;
o standardised data collection strategy for each included study;
o standardised methodological assessment plan for each included study;
o plans for a structured data synthesis (which may be purely narrative or also include metaanalysis);
 results section which should include the following:
o results of search strategy;
o description of primary studies including summary of methodological quality;
o estimates of effect for all pre-specified outcomes.
 discussion section which should include a summary of main findings, an account of
resolution/remaining uncertainty in relation to the review question, quality of evidence, strengths
and limitations of the review, context of findings in relation to existing literature, recommendations
for future research and clinical or other professional practice, presentation of a dissemination plan
(if appropriate) and concluding comments.
 there must be evidence of critical and analytical treatment of primary material throughout the
dissertation;
 review methods, processes and findings must be reported in a transparent way.
Many people believe that systematic reviews can only be based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Since systematic review is essentially a set of scientific principles, the method can be applied to any type of
primary study design, including observational studies, qualitative studies and others. Systematic review
Updated by DDC 12/09/13
Page 3 of 10
may also be used to address methodological questions; in this instance non-randomised studies are often
considered for inclusion. This said, it remains true that the majority of systematic review effort to date has
been expended on reviews of RCTs (and therefore address questions of clinical effectiveness); therefore,
most sources of literature and other support on systematic review methods focus on reviews of RCTs.
Whatever the focus of the review, it is essential that the question, rationale, methods and findings are
reported in a transparent fashion.
Students undertaking Masters Programmes in Applied Health Research are required to attend a 10-credit
module in Systematic Reviews (or AP(e)L) and the module may be optional for students on other Masters
programmes. This module provides support for those undertaking systematic reviews for their dissertation.
Further information can be gleaned from the module key texts (listed below as ‘Useful references’).
Example research questions:
 What is the effectiveness of preoperative statin therapy in patients undergoing cardiac surgery?
 What is the impact on teenage pregnancy of interventions that address the social disadvantage
associated with early parenthood?
 What is the impact of indoor residual spraying alone, and what are the relative impacts of indoor
residual spraying and insecticide-treated mosquito nets, on key malariological parameters?
 What is the effectiveness, and what are the adverse effects of acupuncture in the treatment of
depression?
All of the above questions are taken from systematic reviews which can be accessed from the Cochrane
Library (http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/index.html).
Example research questions for methodological systematic reviews:
 What is the impact of attrition on estimates of treatment effect?
 What is the impact of inadequacy of treatment allocation on estimates of treatment effect?
Useful references:
 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available from http://www.cochranehandbook.org/ (accessed April 2012).
 Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Available from
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/index_guidance.htm (accessed April 2012).
 Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (editors). Systematic reviews in Health Care: Meta analysis in
context. 2nd edition. London, BMJ Publications, 2001.
 Petticrew M & Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell
Publishing, 2006.
4.1.2 Non-systematic reviews
There are some topics that do not lend themselves easily to systematic review; a more creative and flexible
approach is required. This may apply when research questions are theoretical, exploratory or scoping in
nature as opposed to those seeking an estimate of effect in response to a focused question.
Several types of non-systematic reviews are evident from the literature. These may be referred to in
various ways, including the following: traditional review; structured review; conceptual review; realist
review; critical review; and scoping review. It can be difficult to precisely define the required components
for each of these review types as definitions vary in the literature and there is no real consensus as there is
for a systematic review. They can overlap with one another in terms of purpose and methods, and may
also overlap to some extent with systematic review characteristics.
Critical reviews sometimes involve analysis of process (i.e. establishing how an approach might work as
opposed to merely whether it works). Examples of this could include assessment of the experiences of
those implementing interventions or elements of the context of implementation (e.g., impediments and
facilitators to success). The latter may be particularly important in the evaluation of management and
Updated by DDC 12/09/13
Page 4 of 10
policy approaches, especially in relation to feasibility of implementation of complex strategies. The
strengths and weaknesses of different arguments and approaches may be critiqued and areas of
controversy identified.
Scoping reviews may attempt to summarise the volume, nature and characteristics of research within a
given field. Here, the emphasis may be on coverage of the literature and identification of gaps in research,
including recognition of areas of research characterised by persistently poor methodological quality.
Non-systematic reviews can be suitable for dissertation purposes but students must bear in mind that,
whichever type of review method is applied, the marking criteria for dissertations must be fulfilled. This
means that the treatment of primary material should not be merely descriptive. There should be suitable
linking of theory and practice and reporting should be transparent, as is the case for systematic reviews.
The following aspects/sections would normally be recommended for inclusion in a dissertation based on a
non-systematic review, however, because of the flexible nature of this method, the precise details should
always be decided jointly with your dissertation supervisor.
 an addressable research question (may be broad in scope);
 a background section explaining the topic and justification of the need for the review;
 a methods section incorporating justification of methods used and citing of methodological
literature if appropriate, with the following sub-sections:
o a guide for selecting primary studies, bearing in mind that selection may change as part of
an iterative process; a range of different study designs may need to be considered;
o a structured search strategy, possibly iterative in nature;
o a guide for data collection and presentation (sometimes referred to as ‘charting the data’ in
scoping reviews);
o a plan for detailed and critical analysis of some aspect of the topic (e.g. assessment of
methodological quality, process or context of intervention, findings, reporting, suitability of
application of theory and so on);
o a plan for a structured interpretation and synthesis of the assembled evidence;
 results section which should include the following:
o results of literature search;
o description of primary studies, with summary of methodological quality if appropriate;
o report of other aspects of findings, in accordance with the review question;
 discussion section which may include a summary of main findings, an account of
resolution/remaining uncertainty in relation to the review question, quality of evidence (if
appropriate), strengths and limitations of the review, context of findings in relation to other
literature, recommendations for the future, in terms of practice and/or for research such as
systematic review, dissemination plan (if appropriate) and concluding comments.
 there should be evidence of critical and analytical treatment of some aspect of the primary
material;
 review methods, processes and findings must be reported in a transparent way.
Example research questions
 What are the potential impacts of global warming on population health and strategies for tackling
them?
 What does the literature tell us about risk-targeted versus population-wide approaches to chronic
disease prevention?
Useful references:
(The following are available via University of York Library, electronic journals.)
 O’Malley L & Croucher K. Housing and dementia care – a scoping review of the literature. Health
and Social Care in the Community 2005; 13 (6): 570-7.
 Pickett KE & Pearl M. Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health
outcomes: a critical review. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:111–122.
Updated by DDC 12/09/13
Page 5 of 10

Schout BMA, Hendrikx AJM, Scheele F, Bemelmans BLH, Scherpbier AJJA. Validation and
implementation of surgical simulators: a critical review of present, past, and future. Surg Endosc.
2010 March; 24(3): 536–546.
Additional references:
 Petticrew M & Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell
Publishing, 2006. See Chapter 2, Section 2.6, Alternatives to Systematic Reviews.
 Ramsey H & O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology 2005; 8 (1): 19-32.
 Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation
Science 2010; 5 (69). Available from http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/69
(accessed April 2012).
4.1.3 Overviews of reviews
Some topic areas are notable for already having an abundance of published systematic reviews and metaanalyses but these may not have ever been synthesised as a single piece of research. The required task,
then, is to assemble and summarise the evidence, using reviews as the primary study design. Systematic
review methods can be applied here as the same principles apply to reviewing existing reviews as they do
to reviewing primary study designs such as RCTs. Since the unit of study is now a review, methods must be
adapted accordingly, particularly in terms of the search strategy, study selection criteria, data collection,
methodological assessment and data synthesis. It is normally expected that dissertations based on
overviews of reviews will include the following:
 a focused and addressable research question, expanded into aims and objectives as appropriate;
 background section explaining the topic and justification of the need for the overview;
 a methods section incorporating justification of overview methods and citing of appropriate
methodological literature, with the following sub-sections;
o pre-specified selection criteria for primary studies (reviews/meta-analyses);
o a comprehensive search strategy;
o standardised data collection strategy for each included review;
o standardised methodological assessment plan for each included review;
o plans for a structured data synthesis (which may be purely narrative or also include
statistical methods such as network meta-analysis);
 results section which should include the following:
o results of search strategy;
o description of included reviews including summary of methodological quality;
o estimates of effect for all pre-specified outcomes.
 discussion section which should include a summary of main findings, an account of
resolution/remaining uncertainty in relation to the review question, quality of evidence, strengths
and limitations of the overview, context of findings in relation to existing literature,
recommendations for future research and clinical or other professional practice, presentation of a
dissemination plan (if appropriate) and concluding comments.
 there must be evidence of critical and analytical treatment of primary material throughout the
dissertation;
 overview methods, processes and findings must be reported in a transparent way.
Example research questions:
 What is the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of nonpharmacological and pharmacology interventions to manage pain in labour?
 What is the evidence for evaluation of the impact of financial incentives on healthcare professional
behaviour and patient outcomes?
 What is the evidence from Cochrane reviews of the efficacy and safety of pharmacological
interventions designed to assist smoking cessation attempts?
Updated by DDC 12/09/13
Page 6 of 10
The above examples are available from the Cochrane Library (link as above). Students may view other
overviews of reviews by doing a simple search on the Cochrane Library using the search term ‘overview’.
Useful references:
 Peters LWH, Kok G, Ten Dam GTM, Buijs GJ, Paulussen TGWM. Effective elements of school health
promotion across behavioral domains: a systematic review of reviews. BMC Public Health BMC
Public Health 2009, 9:182 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-182. Available from:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/182 (accessed April 2012).
 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Available from http://www.cochranehandbook.org/ (accessed April 2012). See Chapter 22, Overviews of reviews.
4.2
Empirical research
This involves research that requires the undertaking of new, original (or primary) research and for the
purpose of this document includes the analyses of an existing dataset. Please be aware that if you are
considering collecting a new set of data from accessing human participants that this is time consuming. We
need to ensure that human participants are not at harm from being involved in research and will require
approval from the Department’s Research Governance Committee (see
http://www.york.ac.uk/healthsciences/research-information/rsg/). In addition, if the research is based in
health, social or community care in the United Kingdom you will need approval using the NHS IRAS system
(see https://www.myresearchproject.org.uk/signin.aspx). Therefore, whilst the collection of new data can
be feasible, please listen to your supervisor’s advice as to whether undertaking your dissertation topic can
be done in time. This is a more realistic option for a part-time student who has two years to complete their
course and will have more scope for acquiring the necessary approvals. For the purpose of writing a
dissertation, the minimum criteria that you should consider when undertaking this sort of research are:
 A focused research question is established;
 The underpinning theoretical base must be clearly demonstrated;
 The rational for the study methodology, design and methods must be clearly conveyed;
 The methods of sampling, data collection, nature of measurements and anticipated types of
analysis must be clearly conveyed;
 Ethical issues must be considered and addressed.
 Recommendations and a dissemination plan that will enhance practice must be presented.
4.2.1 Randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
RCTs have long been considered the ‘gold standard’ method for establishing effectiveness in health care
research. Two or more groups are formed through random allocation; one or more groups is exposed to
the intervention (experimental group), while the other group(s) receive(s) an alternative treatment or no
treatment (comparison or control group). The effects of the intervention are observed by comparing the
outcomes of both groups. If the groups assembled are sufficiently large, we can be confident that any
differences observed between groups will be a consequence of the intervention, rather than the result of
some other known or unknown variable. Whilst it is extremely unlikely that you would be able to undertake
your own RCT, you may, however, be able to add a study to an existing project with support from the
current investigators.
Examples of research questions:
 What is the effectiveness of ‘acupuncture and usual care’ to ‘usual care’ alone for older adults with
knee osteoarthritis?
 Does placing a GP stamp on an envelope affect response rates and retention with postal
questionnaires, nested within a randomised trial?
 Does offering patients in a trial feedback about the results improve response rates to
questionnaires?
Updated by DDC 12/09/13
Page 7 of 10
Useful references:
 Torgerson DJ, Carole Torgerson. (2008) Designing Randomised Trials in Health, Education and the
Social Sciences – An Introduction. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan.
 Pocock SJ. (1983) Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.
 CONSORT statement for ensuring minimum set of recommendations for reporting of RCTs.
Available from http://www.consort-statement.org/ (accessed September 2013)
4.2.2 Qualitative research
Qualitative research methods tend to be used to explore how people make sense of the world and how
they experience events, within their social and cultural context. They aim to understand ‘what it is like’ to
experience particular conditions. Possible examples include how does it feel to live with chronic pain? What
makes a person consult a health care professional? How do people define and manage certain situations?
How do practitioners communicate a diagnosis or manage particular conditions? The focus is the quality
and texture of experience rather than the identification of cause and effect relationships. It is not enough,
however, to simply describe experience. Successful qualitative research is able to present material in a way
that is contextualised in broader theoretical and empirical debates. The findings should also be relevant to
policy and practice. Qualitative research methods can be used by researchers with different
epistemological positions. Indeed there are different approaches to qualitative research for example
grounded theory, interpretative phenomenology, ethnography discourse analysis. There are also different
ways to collect qualitative material: knowledge reviews, interviews and observation, participant diaries and
focus group discussions; and different approaches to analysing qualitative material: thematic analysis,
framework analysis and conversation analysis. Qualitative research might seem a little less formulaic, when
compared to quantitative techniques, however, students often mistake this as an easier alternative when
there remains a strong need to maintain and justify rigour and credibility. This research is just as
challenging to conduct.
Examples of research questions:
 Does cultural context make a difference to women’s experiences of maternity care?
 How do partners of haemodialysis patients cope with the demands of treatment?
 How do general practitioners convey the complexities of Muscular Sclerosis to patients and
families?
 How do low-income women make decisions about healthy eating for their family?
 To what extent do parents exercise informed choice when making a decision about pre-natal
diagnosis?
 How do people understand obesity? And how does understanding influence their eating and
exercise choices?
 What do practice nurses understand by evidence based practice, when prescribing for asthma?
Useful references:
 Barbour R. (2008) Introducing Qualitative Research: A student guide to the craft of doing qualitative
research, London: Sage
 Bourgeault I, Dingwall R, de Vires R. (2010) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Methods in Health
Research, London: Sage.
 Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. (1998) The Landscape of qualitative research: Theory and Issues, London:
Sage.
 Green J, Thorogood N (2009) Qualitative methods in health research, London: Sage
 Pope C, Mays N. (2006) Qualitative research in health care, London: BMJ Books.
 Silverman S (2009) Doing Qualitative Research (third edition), London: Sage
 Willig C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Second Edition. Maidenhead, Open
University Press.
Updated by DDC 12/09/13
Page 8 of 10
4.2.3 Secondary analyses of existing data
Secondary analysis of existing data involves analysing data which has been collected by someone else for
some other purpose. If data is collected by an individual (or team) for a specific purpose, then it is
considered as primary data. If data was collected by someone else for some other purpose, it is secondary
data. The methods of analysis could be the same for primary and secondary analyses but the question that
is being answered with secondary analyses of existing data is not what the data was specifically being
collated for. For example, if a team conceives of and develops a research project such as that of a RCT,
collects the data to address the specific questions to be answered by the trial and do their own analyses of
the data it is then primary analysis. Another research team may then pose a question that could be
answered through analyses of data of that RCT (and other multiple RCTs) such as the meta-analyses of
individual patient data to assess the impact of loss to follow-up in RCTs on imbalance in baseline
characteristics.
Example research questions:
 What are the reasons for re-admission of patients to a local hospital and to determine whether
they were avoidable or not?
 What is the impact of changing out of hours GP services on attendances in A&E using local data?
Useful references:
 Boslaugh S. (2007) Secondary Data Sources for Public Health: A Practical Guide. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
4.2.4 Survey
A survey could be defined as a technique of data collection generally involving systematic and structured
questioning, either as a smaller sample of respondents using interviews or of a relatively large number of
respondents using a (web-based or postal) questionnaire. The purpose of a survey in health care may be
concerned with topics such as identifying factors associated with a disease, assessing the use and
acceptability of services, and the effects and side effects of health care. Every survey should have a primary
purpose so as to give an adequate answer to at least one specific question.
Examples of research questions:
 What is the service organisation for patients admitted to hospital as acute medical emergencies
and the pattern of consultant doctor cover?
 How widely do doctors endorse and follow the principles of open and honest communication with
patients?
 What is the prevalence of honorary or ghost authorship in leading medical journals?
Useful references:
 Moser CA, Kalton G. (1985) Survey Methods in Social Investigation. Aldershot, Dartmouth.
 Cartwright A. (1987) Health surveys in practice and in potential: a critical review of their scope and
methods. London, Kings Fund Publishing Office.
4.2.5 Other study designs
There are several other designs of empirical studies that could be used for the purpose of undertaking a
Masters dissertation. For example, observational studies through the collection of data on exposure and
disease information (e.g. does Vitamin E supplementation prevent cardiovascular events?); or a diagnostic
accuracy study which assesses the results of one or more tests compared with the results obtained from a
reference standard on the same subjects (e.g. what is the sensitivity and specificity of computed
tomographic colonography for colorectal polyp and cancer detection by using colonoscopy as the reference
standard?). These studies, however, are unlikely to be undertaken because of time constraints with
acquiring the necessary internal and external approvals and recruiting a sufficient number of subjects.
Updated by DDC 12/09/13
Page 9 of 10
5
Summary
Masters dissertations undertaken in Department of Health Sciences will be flexible and diverse. This is a
reflection of the whole spectrum of health care research that can be undertaken and the different
disciplines from which students come from.
To help ensure you successfully undertake a Masters dissertation it is important that you follow three
practical principles:
 to establish a focused and addressable research question;
 to meet regularly with your dissertation supervisor to: a) determine what is feasible and therefore
to ensure you complete your dissertation on time; and b) the need for necessary approvals when
involving human participants;
 to consider carefully the structure, presentation and punctuation of your thesis, and to use the
necessary bibliographical and referencing procedures.
We trust that your undertaking of a Masters dissertation will be an in-depth and stimulating experience.
Updated by DDC 12/09/13
Page 10 of 10