CRITICAL REVIEW

BEHAVIOURAL PERSPECTIVES OF MENTAL WELLBEING MENT3000

Throughout the modules, we have discussed the importance of evidence-based practice. The Critical Review assessment is an opportunity for you to:

1. demonstrate how you are an evidence-based practitioner and can meet standard 1 of the Registered Nurses Standards for Practice (RNSFP) OR domain 3 of the Professional Capabilities for Registered Paramedics (PCFRP) by critically evaluating mental health literature and research findings; and
2. demonstrate how your exploration of the mental health literature assists you provide “comprehensive safe, quality practice to achieve agreed goals and outcomes that are responsive to the nursing needs of people” (nursing students - standard 6.1 of the RNSFP, p. 5) OR “formulate specific and appropriate patient/service user care and treatment actions” (paramedicine students - domain 5.6 of the PCFRP, p. 10) by specifically informing your practice.

A critical review essay is a task asking you to critically review, analyse, evaluate, and synthesise literature in order to provide a critical and persuasive defensible argument and position about an issue

This assessment assists you achieve ULOs:

1. Apply behavioural health science perspectives to psychopathology; and

3. Critically analyse the sociocultural and temporal context of major mental health disorders

“a 21st century clinician who cannot critically read a study is as unprepared as one who cannot take a blood pressure or examine the cardiovascular system”

You have had a busy nightshift. You come home exhausted and turn on the TV to watch the morning news for a while when this pops up on screen:

“Interesting…” you think before heading to bed. The next day, you decide to critically analyse and evaluate this further. You care for lots of people who have mental health diagnoses and you want to investigate the evidence for this claim. You know from MENT3000 that psychiatric diagnostic classification systems such as the DSM-5 and the

ICD-10/11 can be problematic but in order to determine whether something is or isn’t ‘fit for purpose’ you will first need to consider what is the purpose of psychiatric labels and diagnosis? Why is this done?

In exploring your evidence relative to the news broadcast’s claim, your paper must discuss only two main relevant points.

• One must relate to controversies surrounding psychiatric diagnostic classification systems;
• The other must relate to controversies regarding the medicalisation of behaviour.

Your paper must have a clear persuasive argument running through it and not just be a description or summary of relevant literature. Your paper’s definitive position as to whether it is arguing for or against this statement must be explicitly stated in the introduction. You must present evidence justifying and supporting your argument, as well as present evidence not supporting your position with an active counterargument and defence provided against this throughout your paper to demonstrate you have considered both sides of the debate re these issues.

Once you have evaluated the literature informing your position, you will then need to specifically explain how you will apply the results of this critical evaluation to your own practice to ensure you are providing good quality care to people.

• Read through the assessment instructions and rubric carefully. Analyse what the news statement is saying.
• Work through Module 1 and 2 and start brainstorming! This will help you understand what “abnormality” and critical evaluation means. What is the purpose of diagnosis? Start making notes and an argument map and then post to the Bb discussion board to get early feedback.

 Research

• Start your research using databases such as PsycINFO,

MEDLINE, and Emcare. There is no publication date limit of your sources; however, if you use an older source you need to explain your reason for using an older source where newer research exists.

• Work through Module 3 and 4. This will help you understand problems with psychiatric diagnostic classification systems and medicalisation.
• Read broadly and start forming a tentative position re the news statement. Your position will likely change several times as you read more. You’ll need to do several literature searches. Then, commit to a position.

 Write (this stage will take longer than you think)

• Start drafting! Get the ideas on paper. This is your zero

draft (i.e. the draft before your ‘real’ draft). Don’t worry about spelling, grammar, etc. It’s more important to just get the ideas on paper (you’ll fix these when you edit).

• As your ideas take shape, develop your draft essay outline (see the example outline on Bb).
• Start writing your first draft. Double check you’re presenting both supporting and non-supporting evidence in your paper. Make sure you’re critically analysing and evaluating your content.
• Leave your first draft for a day or two, then come back and write your second draft.

 Edit

• Time to edit your paper. Make sure it uses formal academic English (see the rubric) and that it flows. Check you have a clear position stated in your introduction.
• Proofread your paper. Read it aloud to catch errors.
• Format it like the APA 7th sample paper and check your

APA 7th citations. Using headings is strongly encouraged.

• Remove any assessment cover/title page, contents page, marking rubric, or plagiarism checklist you’ve attached (we don’t need these).

AND

1. 1 of the 10 participants in the Australian How ‘Mad’ Are You? (Hickey et al., 2018) documentary discussed in Module 3 as an example to illustrate a particular claim or claims being made at some point in your paper;

AND

1. a minimum of 8 additional relevant peer-reviewed journal articles (preferably research studies) independently sourced by you (not inclusive of the unit’s essential or recommended readings/sources - you may use these but they do not count towards this requirement).
2. Using only the minimum number of sources would earn you in the “Needs Improvement” category. As a guide for scoring well in this criterion, we would expect upwards of 15 high-quality relevant peer-reviewed journal research study sources sourced by you