African and Caribbean communities relationship with mental health services: experiencing treatment and care in inpatient settings
A couple of months ago, i placed an order (no 81022519) for a dissertation. Prior to placing this order, I had done the introduction and the background chapters of this dissertation hence the rest of the dissertation (abstract, methodology, themes, summary of findings, strength and limitations of review, limitations of the literature reviewing process and conclusions) was written by one of your writers. This piece of work was failed when it was submitted. I am placing this order for the work to be rewritten and for the writer to address the reasons why this work was failed.
I have uploaded the following:
A copy of the failed dissertation
Copy of feedback from supervisors with comments while the dissertation was failed
This peace of work then is a re-write of the failed dissertation to address all the shortfalls raised by the markers/supervisors.
To also support the writer, i have uploaded the following files:
A copy of the dissertation module handbook to refer to for to for clarification if in doubt of anything. This the handbook we were given that contains everything about the module and how to go about the dissertation.
The documents I used to write the introduction and background chapters
The 8 papers used for the review
The appendices on the failed dissertation include my original dissertation proposal and qualitative critique tool. The appendix c is to be replaced with a qualitative review matrix as explained above.
A blank copy of a ?qualitative review matrix? table to be completed and an example of a quantitative review matrix table that has been done already
This dissertation is 10,000 words. The writer while doing this work should look at the copy of the failed dissertation that i have enclosed and ration the number of words for each part of the dissertation similar to the failed dissertation. The matrix table should not take more than 600 words. The dissertation topic remains the same as set out in the failed copy of the dissertation attached.
Please, i was not pleased with the way this order was handled last time. Instructions were not followed by the first writer and i had to ask for a rewrite more than two times. The final writer put in some effort to remedy the work but we were running out of time hence he couldn?t do a lot. Please can you ensure all instructions are followed.
Can the writer ensure that the writing is ?British english?. I spent a lot of time in changing words from American English English to British English.
I am willing at all times to communicate in anyway possible with the writer in case they need any clarification on any instructions. This will help us to avoid rewrites.
Also, this work is to be resubmitted for marking on the 10/12/2013, the writer should take a bit more time and patience in writing to avoid a rush. On the other hand, it will be ideal if various chapters of the work can be submitted to me as soon as they are done for me to turn it in for supervision and feedback before final submission so as to resolve any issues quickly before submission date.
Below is a summary by me of the key points that were raised by the markers in the uploaded comment sheet that must be addressed in this piece of work.
ISSUES THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN THIS NEW WORK TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE MARKER: (please read the comment sheet uploaded from marker alongside this)
1) In general grammatical and spelling errors should be avoided.
Refer to the marker?s comment to address the problem that was wrong with the abstract.
Raised concerns about the reference, Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (SCMH, 2002), that it is 11 years old. Can this be updated in terms of the current issues of concern?
With respect to the marker?s reference to Keating?s work of 2007 quoted in the last sentence in page 13, I have uploaded the paper so that you can read through and address the marker?s concerns
The 2nd paragraph under the background feedback letter from the markers is positive and do not expect a lot of changes in this area other than the issues the markers raised.
The 3rd paragraph is just a summary of the markers? general understanding of my study. It also draws my attention not to use etc as on the end of paragraph 1 in page 20.
When i met the markers, I was told this chapter and the themes chapters are those that really affected the quality of the work. Therefore, i need the writer to follow all the instructions here strictly.
Under the methodology theme, there is subheading, 3.1 Research Method. The markers were very critical of the content of this subheading. On paragraph 2 in page 22, it is difficult to understand what the writer is trying to explain. They also highlighted some grammatical in page 23 that detract from the overall quality of the work, and they pointed out that, ?page 22 to 24 constitute a full what they think is the less satisfactory writing within this essay and that a more careful explanation and a more careful focus of writing is needed here?.
Also look at the 3rd point under the inclusion and exclusion criteria in page 24. I don?t know why the statement was included about, ..older people beyond the age of sixties .. and if this is there, there should be clear evidence as to why this is the case.
Markers complained about ?me? being used in page 26 instead of ?the author?.
Can you give an idea as highlighted by the markers in page 27 under sub heading, 3.4 Literature Searching Strategy, of the numbers of search terms relating to the various databases that was interrogated as part of the study?
In the first paragraph in page 29, which is a continuation from page 28 under subheading, 3.6 strategy for evaluating literature, reference was made of the critiquing tool in Appendix B ( page 55). There was a lack of detail discussion under this subheading to demonstrate a critical understanding of how this tool has been used. This is one of the key things that is missing in the work.
NB: Please read: ?Greenhalgh T (2006) How to read a paper. The asic of evidence based medicine. 3rd edition. London. MJ books/Blackwell.? It explains all about this critiquing tool.
There also needs to e a clear and transparent link between the critiquing tool and the matrix which is sited in page 29 under the subheading, 3.7 proposed strategy for synthesis of findings.
NB: I want to note here that i requested that this matrix should e done but it wasn?t and can i re-emphasise here that it must e done this time because is one of the reasons that this work was failed. I will upload a blank qualitative matrix table for you to fill and this will replace Appendix C. This qualitative matrix table consist of headings where the writer will summarise the 8 papers used for this critical literature review and as stated by the markers, this matrix should show a clear and transparent link between the critiquing tool and the matrix. I will upload an example of an already filled in ?quantitative matrix? as guidance and i will also upload a blank ?qualitative matrix? for you to complete since this study is qualitative.
Please refer to the book: ?Gerrard J (2011) Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy: the matrix method [3rd Edn.], Sudbury MA, Jones & Bartlett.? This book was recommended by our university for use in this critical literature review. It has examples of a matrix and outlines the whole process of a critical literature review.
This is another area where this piece of work fell short. Three points were raised in this area to address all what went wrong. Please read each carefully and address the concerns.
Paragraph 3 still emphasized the need of a matreix to show that the papers chosen for the critical literature review have een critiqued using the critique tool in appendix B.
Please ensure all the three points raised here are addressed, especially the issue of relating to referencing.
Summary of findings:
One of the key problems here is that, rather than only summarising the findings relating to the 8 papers in Appendix C that were used for the critical literature review, new papers were introduced which made it hard for the markers to link this with the previous chapters as new papers were discussed. It should be noted again here that the markers mentioned that instead of appendix c being a list of the original 8 papers used for the review, it should instead have been a review matrix as i explained above, which should have been a more thorough table as indicated above to link the work together more effectively.
Strengths and limitations:
The feedback here was positive
Conclusion and implications for practice, directions for future study:
The markers were ?very critical? of the writing here. Please read their feedback and rewrite this section.
Areas for possible development/strategies to lead forward:
Refer to markers? feedback under this part and address all issues raised.
My preferred language style is: English, UK
All documents mentioned aove to support the writer will be uploaded below.