1. You should write with the aim of setting the context for your proposed work, and justifying what you intend investigating. Therefore, it is useful to incorporate your research question and hypotheses or planned outcomes. These could be in a summary to close your review, or incorporated in your writing and possibly repeated in list format at the end.
2. When you come to write up your thesis, the type of research you are undertaking will influence whether aspects of your methodology are justified in your introductory literature review or in your methodology chapter. However, for the purposes of THIS COURSEWORK, we do not anticipate justification of methodological approach, albeit no-one will be penalised at all for mentioning such aspects.
3. Because this is a “stand alone” piece of work, you should give it a meaningful title beyond “Literature Review”. Something like .. “A review of current literature reporting the dose implications of subjective radiographic practice”
4. The review is the start point of the introductory chapter of the thesis. You should therefore number the sections according to the thesis system, i.e. 1.1; 1.2; 1.3; with sub sections numbered 1.1.1.; 1.1.2 etc.
5. Generally you do not number the introductory preamble that follows the main title. You do not need a title of 1.1. INTRODUCTION immediately after your main heading.
6. You should include a table of contents with each section and sub section listed against an associated page number. The easiest way to do this is construct a table.
7. You should use the Harvard reference system throughout the text, and you should include a reference list, formatted in the Harvard style.
8. You should not include a bibliography.
9. Number your pages at the top of bottom right.
10. Reviews with a high word count do not incur penalty just because the word count is high. Reviews that have high word counts because the writing is waffly, somewhat irrelevant, repetitive or disorganised will accrue less grade credit. Recommended 2,500-3,000 words.
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.Using Online Search Activity in Medical Radiation Awareness – A Critique and Justification
With growing concern about the levels and risks of exposure to medical radiation, such as from CT scans and radiography (Brink and Amis, 2010), effective information dissemination and campaigns to raise awareness are vital. The model for these efforts is to be found—ideally—in cancer-awareness campaigns, such as the unmistakable, pink-themed, and highly commercialized work on breast cancer outreach. The model for the study of the efficacy of such campaigns is also to be found in the work done to raise awareness of various forms of cancer – the method of interest here is the use of online search activity as an index of the success of awareness campaigns and as a predictor of offline, health-seeking actions. In the literature review below, much work is done to justify the need for research on the role played by online search activity in the efficacy of campaigns to raise awareness of the risks of medical radiation. And, as will be seen, the argument proceeds by way of detailed critique of the use of online search activity as index and predictor of the success of cancer-awareness campaigns.
1.1 Awareness campaigns for breast, lung, and prostate cancers
In the study most pertinent to this paper, Glynn et al. (2011) examine the impact of health awareness campaigns on internet search frequencies, in particular by comparing the effects of breast cancer awareness programs with campaigns targeting lung and prostate cancers. One of the key elements of the study’s value is the relatively long term for which Google searches were analyzed, a period of six years. A caveat to be noted, however, is that the term extended from early 2004 through 2009 – a relatively recent period in purely chronological terms but a prior, pre-mobile epoch in technological terms, with all the concomitant generational and behavioral changes which have followed. Highlighting this temporal-technological point is important because the authors themselves see the development of breast cancer awareness campaigns as having happened—not coincidentally—“in tandem” (Glynn et al., 2011, p. 1) with the advent and growth of...