NursingLiterature reviewLiterature review

DNP 955 Topic 4: Chapter 2 literature review

Themes with three subthemes each is a demand for hierarchy. It is also the fastest way to find out whether you have a synthesis or a stack of summaries.

Aug 15, 2026

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 15, 2026

Written by

Aaron Bishop

MA, Education

assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines

Reviewed by

Dr. Nathan Cole

PhD, Rhetoric & Composition

Argumentation and thesis development

On this page

Interpret the task
Assignment instructions
Deliverables
Proposed outline
Research plan
Reference shortlist
Final review

Themes and subthemes are a structure, not a formatting rule

The structural requirement is doing more work than it appears to. Themes with at least three subthemes each is not a formatting preference; it is a test of whether you have synthesised. A theme is a claim the literature collectively supports, and its subthemes are the distinct strands of evidence underneath it. If you cannot find three strands, either the theme is too narrow to be a theme or you have not read enough. And if your subthemes turn out to be individual studies rather than strands, you have an annotated bibliography with headings — which is the commonest failure in this chapter and is visible immediately to anyone who has read a few. It also matters that this chapter expands work you began earlier in the programme rather than starting fresh. The earlier review was scoped to a course; this one to a project, which means more underneath each theme and usually a theme that did not exist before.

Derive the themes from your strategic points rather than from whatever the search returned, because chapter two exists to establish that your problem is real, that your intervention has support, and that a gap remains which your project addresses. Those three jobs suggest the themes. Write each theme's section as an argument: this is what the literature collectively shows, here is where it agrees, here is where it does not, and here is the methodological difference that probably explains the disagreement. That last move — explaining a disagreement rather than reporting it — is what separates a doctoral review from a competent undergraduate one. Then make the gap explicit and make it yours: a gap that any project could fill is not an argument for this one. Keep a record of the search itself as you go, since the chapter will need to describe how the literature was found, and reconstructing that afterwards is far harder than logging it.

Likely learning objectives

Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.

01
Distinguish a theme from a topic and a subtheme from a study.
02
Derive review structure from the project's strategic points.
03
Explain disagreement in the literature rather than reporting it.
04
State a gap that this project specifically addresses.

Assignment instructionsQuoted verbatim

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

Chapter 2 of the DPI Project Proposal is entitled “Literature Review” and expands upon work you completed in DNP-820 in the Develop a Literature Review assignment. Synthesis of the literature in the Literature Review (Chapter 2) defines the key aspects of the learner’s scholarly project, such as the problem statement, population and location, clinical questions, hypotheses or phenomena (if relevant to the project), methodology and design, purpose statement, data collection, and data analysis approaches. The literature selected must illustrate strong support for the learner’s practice change proposal. General Requirements: Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment: Locate the “DPI Proposal Template” in the PI Workspace of the DC Network. Locate the Develop a Literature Review assignment you completed in DNP-820. Locate the “Research Article Chart” resource in the Topic Materials. Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center. Directions: Use the “DPI Proposal Template” and the Develop a Literature Review assignment from DNP-820 to develop a draft of a literature review (Chapter 2) for your DPI Project Proposal. The literature review (Chapter 2) is required to be a minimum of 30 pages. You have already completed some of this review in previous courses. No less than 85% of the articles must have been published in the past 5 years. Articles selected must further provide strong, relatable support for the proposal. Use the following guidelines to create your draft Literature Review (Chapter 2): Using the PICOT question format, identify at least three empirical or scholarly articles (25 articles total) related to the theme in the PICOT question. Use the “Research Article Chart” resource located in the Topic Materials as a guide to: (a) analyze and synthesize the literature into your paper, (b) state the article title, (c) identify the author, (d) state the research question(s), (e) identify the research sample, (f) explain the research methodology, (g) identify the limitations in the study, (h) provide the research findings of the study, and (i) identify the opportunities for practice implementation. For scholarly, nonempirical articles, state the article title and author, and provide a brief contextual summary of the article. Identify at least three subthemes that relate to each theme (six subthemes total). Identify at least three empirical or scholarly articles related to each subtheme (18 articles total). At least one article must demonstrate a quantitative methodology. Write statements that synthesize the three studies for each subtheme based on the information you stated above. You will write six synthesis statements. Portfolio Practice Hours: Practice immersion assignments are based on your current course objectives, and are intended to be application-based learning using your real-world practice setting. These assignments earn practice immersion hours and are indicated in the assignment by a Portfolio Practice Hours statement that reminds you, the learner, to enter in a corresponding case log in Typhon. Actual clock hours are entered, but the average hours associated with each practice immersion assignment is 10. You are required to complete your assignment using real-world application. Real-world application requires the use of evidence-based data, contemporary theories, and concepts presented in the course. The culmination of your assignment must present a viable application in a current practice setting. For more information on parameters for practice immersion hours, please refer to DNP resources in the DC Network. To earn portfolio practice hours, enter the following after the references section of your paper: Practice Hours Completion Statement DNP-955 DNP 955 Topic 4 DPI Project Proposal Chapter 2 Literature Review GCU I, (INSERT NAME), verify that I have completed (NUMBER OF) clock hours in association with the goals and objectives for this assignment. I have also tracked said practice hours in the Typhon Student Tracking System for verification purposes and will be sure that all approvals are in place from my faculty and practice mentor.

Course-wide instructions that accompany this question

Name: Assignment Rubric Grid View List View Excellent Good Fair Poor Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%) The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 28 (28%) – 31 (31%) The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value. The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 25 (25%) – 27 (27%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data. The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values. An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague. The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described. 0 (0%) – 24 (24%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing. An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing. The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing. Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided. The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing. The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it is missing. Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3 (3%) – 3 (3%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. Total Points: 100 Name: Assignment Rubric

Turn the brief into deliverables

01
Themes derived from the project's own strategic points.
02
At least three subthemes under each theme.
03
Synthesis arguing what the literature collectively shows.
04
An explanation for where studies disagree.
05
An explicit gap tied to this project.
06
A documented search strategy.

Search, theme, synthesise, then find the gap

Search strategy

Describe how the literature was identified and bounded.

Theme one and its subthemes

Establish the problem's significance through three strands of evidence.

Theme two and its subthemes

Establish support for the intervention across three strands.

Where the literature disagrees

Identify conflicts and account for them methodologically.

The gap

State what remains unanswered and why this project addresses it.

Building the search you will have to describe

Recommended databases

CINAHL
PubMed
Cochrane Library
Scopus or Web of Science

Search sequence

1.
Draft the themes from your strategic points before searching.
2.
Log every search string, database and date as you run it.
3.
Group retrieved studies by claim rather than by author.
4.
Look specifically for studies that contradict your intervention's support.

Reference shortlist

These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.

Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.

01
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
BMJ · 2021
A reporting standard specifying what a review must disclose about its search, which is what the strategy section has to satisfy.
02
Systematic reviews and other types of synthesis: commentary on the methodological series published in Epidemiology and Health Services
PubMed Central, US National Library of Medicine · 2022
On synthesis methods and how a body of literature is bounded and combined rather than listed.
03
Study Bias
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Sets out study biases, which is what usually explains a disagreement between studies.
04
Epidemiology Of Study Design
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
The design catalogue that lets a methodological explanation for disagreement be made precisely.

Review before submission

Common mistakes

Producing an annotated bibliography under thematic headings.
Letting the search results dictate the themes.
Reporting disagreement without explaining it.
Stating a gap so general that any project would fill it.
Reconstructing the search strategy after the writing is done.

Submission checklist

Are your subthemes strands of evidence rather than individual studies?
Do the themes follow from your strategic points?
Have you explained at least one disagreement?
Is the gap specific to your project?

Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.