| Course | HS865 Doctoral Project II: Research |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Search strategy log |
| Length | About 870 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Health Science (DHSc) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS865 Unit 2
Four Databases, Two Journals by Hand and a Split Date Limit: A Unit 2 Search Strategy Log for a Gonadal Shielding Review
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS865: Doctoral Project II: Research
Unit 2 Search Strategy Log
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The review and its yields are composite and shown as placeholders; the databases, guidance and framework named are real.
The Review Question
Among radiographers performing projection radiography, what is known about the persistence of routine gonadal shielding and the factors associated with it, in the period since professional guidance recommended ending the practice?
The question is framed with PICo rather than PICO, because it asks about a practice and its context rather than an intervention and an outcome, and the practice in question has been described as a legacy habit rather than an evidence-based intervention (Marsh & Silosky, 2019). Population: radiographers and radiologic technologists. Phenomenon of interest: use of, attitudes toward and reasons for gonadal or contact shielding. Context: projection radiography after the American Association of Physicists in Medicine position statement of April 2019 and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements statement of 2021.
Why the Date Limit Is Split
A single date limit would either miss the background or flood the review with outdated practice studies. The log therefore uses two limits. For studies of practice and attitudes, the limit is January 2019 forward, since the review asks about persistence after guidance changed. For studies of dose, anatomy and shield effectiveness, the limit is January 2000 forward, because the evidence that motivated the change, such as studies showing that shields often miss the ovaries in young girls (Fawcett et al., 2012), predates the guidance.
Sources Searched
1. PubMed (MEDLINE), searched [date].
2. CINAHL Complete, searched [date].
3. Scopus, searched [date].
4. ERIC, for studies of radiography education, searched [date].
5. Hand search of Radiography and Radiologic Technology, all issues from January 2019 to [date].
6. Gray literature: position statements and guidance from professional and radiation protection bodies, plus state radiation control regulations in the United States, because several practice studies report radiographers shielding partly because a state rule once required it.
Search Strings
PubMed, practice and attitudes strand: ("gonadal shielding" OR "gonad shield*" OR "contact shielding" OR "patient shielding" OR "lead shield*") AND (radiographer* OR "radiologic technologist*" OR "radiation technologist*" OR radiography[mh]) AND (practice* OR attitude* OR knowledge OR survey* OR belief*), limited to 2019 forward. Yield: [212].
PubMed, dose and anatomy strand: ("gonadal shielding" OR "gonad shield*" OR "patient shielding") AND (dose OR "automatic exposure control" OR ovar* OR anatomy OR effectiveness), limited to 2000 forward. Yield: [147].
CINAHL used subject headings for radiography and radiation protection combined with the same free-text terms. Yield: [126]. Scopus searched titles, abstracts and keywords with the free-text terms. Yield: [98]. ERIC searched radiography education with shielding terms, since surveys of educators suggest that shielding was still widely taught shortly before the guidance changed (Shanley & Matthews, 2018). Yield: [11]. Hand search: [20]. Total: [614].
Every yield sits beside its date, because a database returns a different number next month, and a committee rerunning the search needs to know which month it is comparing against.
How the Strings Were Built
The strings were developed in three rounds. The first used only "gonadal shielding" and returned too few practice studies, because many authors write about "patient shielding" or "contact shielding" without naming the gonads. The second added those phrases and the plural forms, which recovered several surveys but also pulled in studies of staff aprons and thyroid collars. The third added the profession terms and the practice terms, which kept the patient-focused studies and dropped most of the staff-protection literature. A health sciences librarian reviewed the final strings before the searches were run, and her suggestion to search Scopus for conference papers from radiographer societies was adopted.
Screening
After removing [188] duplicates, [426] titles and abstracts were screened by the student, with a second reviewer, the student's research mentor, screening a random [20] percent; disagreements were discussed and the inclusion rules clarified. [361] records were excluded at this stage. Most common reasons: not about shielding in projection radiography ([142]), shielding of staff rather than patients ([96]), CT or fluoroscopy only ([71]), commentary without data ([52]).
Full texts of [65] records were read. [42] were excluded: practice studies before 2019 ([17]), dental radiography only ([9]), no data on radiographers ([10]), conference abstract only ([6]). [23] studies were included.
Inclusion and Exclusion Rules
Included: empirical studies of radiographers' shielding practice, knowledge, attitudes or reasons since 2019; empirical studies of shield dose effects, placement accuracy or anatomy since 2000; guidance documents from professional or regulatory bodies. Excluded: staff shielding, CT and fluoroscopy, dental radiography, opinion pieces without data and studies not in English.
Changes Made During the Search
Two changes were made and logged. "Radiation technologist" was added after the first CINAHL run missed two European surveys using that term. Dental radiography was excluded after screening showed its practices and guidance differ enough to need a separate review.
Limits
English-only inclusion may miss surveys from countries where shielding guidance changed at different times. Gray literature searches of state regulations were limited to [ten] states with large imaging workforces.
References
Fawcett, S. L., Gomez, A. C., Barter, S. J., Ditchfield, M., & Set, P. (2012). More harm than good? The anatomy of misguided shielding of the ovaries. The British Journal of Radiology, 85(1016), e442-e447. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/25742247
Marsh, R. M., & Silosky, M. (2019). Patient shielding in diagnostic imaging: Discontinuing a legacy practice. American Journal of Roentgenology, 212(4), 755-757. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20508
Shanley, C., & Matthews, K. (2018). A questionnaire study of radiography educator opinions about patient lead shielding during digital projection radiography. Radiography, 24(4), 328-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2018.04.001
HS865 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms
The second unit usually asks candidates to plan, run and document the literature search for their doctoral review. Expect several pages, often with tables or numbered lists. The log should state the review question in a structured format, name every database and other source with the date searched, give full search strings and yields, list inclusion and exclusion rules and report numbers at each screening stage with reasons for exclusion. Instructors look for enough detail that another person could repeat the search and get comparable results. Many prompts expect a second screener for at least part of the records and a note of any changes made while searching. Gray literature, such as guidance documents, is often relevant in practice-focused reviews and should be logged like any other source.
How the HS 865 Unit 2 example is put together
The log opens with the review question in PICo form and explains why PICo suits a practice question. A section justifies the split date limit with reference to the anatomy evidence that predates the guidance. Six numbered sources follow. Search strings for two PubMed strands are given in full with yields, followed by the other databases. A section explains how the strings were refined in three rounds with a librarian's review. The highlighted sentence explains why each yield carries a date. Screening reports duplicates, title and abstract exclusions with reasons, full-text exclusions with reasons and the final count. Inclusion rules, two mid-search changes and limits close the log.
Reading the HS865 Unit 2 grading rubric
Search logs are commonly assessed on reproducibility, comprehensiveness, transparency of screening, appropriateness of the question framework and organization. Reproducibility tends to count most, and it depends on full strings, dates and yields rather than summaries such as "searched PubMed for shielding." Comprehensiveness is judged by whether the sources fit the topic, including field-specific journals and gray literature where relevant. Screening transparency earns credit when counts and reasons are reported at each stage and when a second reviewer checks part of the work. Using a question framework suited to the type of review, such as PICo for practice questions, signals methodological awareness. Clear tables or numbered lists and a statement of limits complete the score.
HS865 Unit 2 help: mistakes that cost points
The most frequent weakness is a log that describes searches in general terms without exact strings or dates, which makes it impossible to repeat. Another is giving the final count of included studies while hiding how many records fell away at each stage. Some candidates search a single database and miss field-specific journals. Others change criteria during screening without recording the change. Leaving out a second screener, even for a sample, weakens confidence in the selection. If your review covers a different topic, perhaps sepsis screening tools or caregiver burden, send your question and draft terms, and a search log can be prepared that another researcher could rerun.
Get an HS865 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Search logs differ by section: some want a table alone, others a narrative with a PRISMA 2020 diagram. Share the Unit 2 instructions, the rubric, your review question and any strings already tried. What returns is a log whose every search and exclusion another person could repeat, with bracketed yields left for your own runs. First custom sample free; 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HS865 papers and DHSc samples
- HS865 Unit 1: Summary Versus Synthesis Post
- HS865 Unit 3: Synthesis Matrix
- HS865 Unit 4: Thematic Literature Review
- HS865 Unit 5: Theoretical Framework Section
- HS865 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HS865 Unit 7: Gap Statement
- HS865 Unit 8: Methodology Draft
- HS865 Unit 9: Instrument Alignment Table
- HS865 Unit 10: Review Chapter Draft
- HS860 Unit 2: Lymphedema Problem Statement Draft
- HS850 Unit 2: Influence Without Authority Review
- HS810 Unit 2: Discussion Board Post
- HS840 Unit 2: Research Question Critique Paper
HS865 Unit 2 questions, answered
Why does the log use PICo rather than PICO?
PICO suits questions about interventions and outcomes. This review asks about a practice and why it persists, which is closer to a qualitative question, so population, phenomenon of interest and context fit better. The framework matters less than consistency: every term in each database string should map back to one of its elements, and the log should show that mapping.
Do search yields need to be exact?
They should be exactly what the database returned on the date searched, which is why that date sits beside every row. Numbers change as databases add records, so a rerun a month later will differ slightly. What must reconcile is the flow diagram: records identified, duplicates removed, screened, excluded and included should add up without a gap.
Should state radiation rules count as sources?
For this topic they do, because several practice studies report radiographers shielding partly because a state rule once required it. Recording which rules were checked, and whether each was revised after 2019, lets the review separate regulatory leftovers from habit. Your own topic may have an equivalent: policy documents that shape practice but never appear in a journal.
Where can I find a free HS865 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page holds the complete Unit 2 search strategy log for a gonadal shielding review, with strings, dated yields and screening counts.
Why split the date limit into two?
Practice studies only matter after the 2019 guidance change, but the dose and anatomy evidence that drove the change is older, so each strand needs its own start date.