REFLECTION REPORT
In this study, I aim to explore the different activities associated with promoting dairy products. In this matter, I have reflected throughout the study how I conduct the research and health promoting activities associated with dairy products in order to prevent the disease hypertension. Throughout the study, I have brief described my experience and actions associated with this through my reflection. Gibbs reflection model is used for understanding the effect of internships and better grasp of my skills. In this matter, I have considered self-assessment as one of the best tools in terms of understanding my skills and different components of Gibs model.
When I started this research project, I carefully laid out a plan to look into the link between dairy products and preventing high blood pressure, affecting many people worldwide. One of the first things that I have done is conducting meetings. One of the first meeting was face-to face and after that the group is divided as per the convenience. The most important thing was the team working where I have seen team to search carefully for related material, focused on studies and papers recently published. This ensured that the newest research and ideas in the field were included. I started the search by going to academic sites like PubMed and Science Direct, that are known for having strict peer-reviewed material. I searched all published works using specific terms linked to heart health, high blood pressure, and dairy products. During the period, I have noticed significance improvement regarding the participants and further, I carefully read the summaries of many studies to figure out how they related to my research question.
After picking out the most relevant pieces, I put them in order to analyse them in more detail. My goal is to learn more about the different nutrients found in dairy, such as calcium, potassium, proteins, and bacteria, and how they help keep blood pressure in check. The study involved a lot of complicated biological interactions, which I tried to fully understand to write a review that correctly explained what they meant. During the meeting phase, I carefully organised the studies by writing down how they were set up, who participated, what dairy products were studied, and what results were measured. In the meeting, I also paid close attention to the specifics, like how much dairy was eaten, how long the study lasted, and which health markers were tracked. This amount of precision was significant for figuring out how strong and valuable the proof was.
As I put the pieces of knowledge together, I explained how cheese might affect high blood pressure. This talked about how calcium helps relax blood vessels, how potassium keeps the body's sodium levels in check, and how peptides might be able to stop enzymes that tighten blood vessels, which raises blood pressure. I also paid much attention to how the review was put together and formatted. According to Klug et al. (2023), it was essential to ensure that the results were stated correctly and laid out so that both health experts and regular people could easily understand. To do this, I divided the study into clear pieces, each looking at a different part of the link between eating dairy and high blood pressure. A critical analysis of the research methods used in the studies, such as observational groups and randomised controlled trials, was also part of the process. This step was crucial for figuring out how good the data was and how it could be used to change professional practise and food standards.
I kept the review's tone serious but approachable because I knew many would read the work. There was a good mix between using scientific language and keeping things simple and clear so that many could read the review.
The literature study started with much information that was hard to handle. Seeing how many papers and information on dairy products and high blood pressure was overwhelming. I remember feeling fear and drive as I faced the task's complexity. As I read through the many study papers, my original feeling of being overwhelmed turned into a deep-seated interest. What really interested me was the idea that dairy products might help lower blood pressure. As during the internship, I read more about the topic, I became more interested in it, and the assignment went from being just an assignment to becoming a journey of discovery.
It was tough to understand the complicated science ideas that were written about. There were often many complicated biological processes involved in how different parts of dairy could affect blood pressure (van et al. 2020). At times, it was frustrating that I couldn't fully understand these ideas, and I was afraid of being misunderstood as I tried to understand and share these results properly.
Even though there were problems, there was an undeniable sense of joy when things became clear (Gozali, 2022). It was very satisfying when pieces of information fit together in a way that made sense. After analysing and putting together the data into an organised study, I felt good about my abilities. It gave me confidence that I could handle such a big job.
I was very aware of how this literature study might affect things during the process. The thought that putting together all of this knowledge could help public health by helping doctors and people make better food choices gave my work a deep sense of duty and purpose. Undoubtedly, the review process was a significant way to learn. It helped me better analyse things and taught me more about nutrition science and public health. I learned how to get through complex study, understand the subject better, and communicate these ideas more clearly. It was an intellectually stimulating journey. My feelings changed as the review came to an end. I became excited about future academic activities. Seeing where there were gaps in the research led to ideas for new studies and more research. People were eager to keep adding to the field and build on what they had learned in this challenging intellectual practise.
When I think back on team working and how I did the literature study on dairy products and preventing high blood pressure, I can see many things that went well and some things that I could have done better. The wide-ranging study that was done was one of the main benefits. A lot of different studies, like observational studies, randomised controlled trials, and meta-analyses, were carefully looked over by me. This level of detail ensured that the review was based on many scientific points of view, giving it a strong and welcoming quality.
One of my other big strengths that I got from internship was keeping my logical rigour throughout the process. I carefully examined each study's methods, participants, and results, which helped me better understand the research environment. This critical method was necessary to ensure the review was fair and reliable. However, this intense focus on detail made it hard to find the main points of the studies and put them together in a way that made sense. As per Sandberg et al. (2021), finding the right balance between giving detailed technical knowledge and clarifying the main plot was always hard.
The review's organisation was a big deal, and every effort was made to ensure that the information was presented in a way that made sense. I tried to write about a lot of science information in an exciting and informative way. Still, there were times when the flow of information felt slowed down by using complicated science words (Delahooke, 2020). Finding the right mix between professional truth and reading was hard, and it needed constant care.
Another great thing about the study was that it found gaps in the current literature. It was helpful to point out these gaps because they made the study more complete and helped plan future research (Remko, 2020). This part was essential for showing how the field is changing. The study could have been even better if it had gone into more detail about how these gaps affect present knowledge and practice.
It was important to connect with the audience since the review was for healthcare workers and regular people (Vizheh et al. 2020). I tried to make the content understandable to a wide range of people, but ensuring that the scientific details were not lost in the translation was hard.
In hindsight, the review did a thorough and in-depth look at the topic, but it could have been even better by using a more comprehensive range of sources, such as non-peer-reviewed literature for a more balanced view. There should have been more focus on how the results could be used in everyday diets and public health advice to make the study more useful.
Ultimately, the literature review process was a journey that included a deep dive into scientific study, careful presentation, and critical analysis. It stood out for how detailed and critical it was, but it was noted that it could be improved by making the story flow better and more useful in real life.
When utilising Gibbs' Reflective Cycle to reflect on the literature review process, the analysis phase is when I really dig in and figure out what it all means. Many different nutritional factors and biochemical pathways were discussed in relation to dairy products and their usefulness in reducing hypertension (Khan et al. 2019). This level of complexity requires for extensive scientific knowledge. Though I had no trouble understanding and discussing these ideas in the review, I did have trouble boiling them down to their essentials without sacrificing their rigour. The exercise demonstrated the value of conveying technical, scientific data in plain English.
Different sorts of studies, each with their unique approach, were included in the review. The significance of research design in affecting study results was underlined by analysing different methods. It taught me how different types of studies may complement one another to provide a fuller picture of a subject. Even Cooper et al. (2019) claimed it was difficult to compare and synthesise data from different studies due to the disparity in approaches used by different researchers.
In the team working environment, I worked really very hard to have an unbiased perspective in the team throughout the evaluation process as I analysed the merits and shortcomings of each research. Further, he reliability of the review depended on the results of this critical thinking activity. It also made me aware of the possibility for bias - both in the papers I was evaluating and in my own perceptions. This insight from the team highlighted the need to maintain a heightened awareness of bias in research settings. One of the biggest obstacles through working in a team was assembling seemingly unrelated bits of data (Brown et al. 2021). This entailed comprehending individual studies and perceiving the wider picture they together constituted. This approach tested my capacity for information synthesis and the ability to make broad conclusions, which are essential in any research synthesis.
A critical element of the analysis was locating blank spots in the literature. It not only highlighted to the limits of present knowledge but also suggested options for future investigation. This part of the review emphasised the dynamic character of scientific research, where each study either adds to or challenges the previously established body of knowledge. Analysing this event, I see its huge influence on my personal and professional progress. It helped me become a better researcher, understand a critical health problem, and become a more articulate communicator. My respect for the rigour of scientific inquiry and its importance in shaping public health policy has grown as a result.
The literature review process was complex and rewarding in many ways, as shown by this analysis utilising Gibbs' Reflective Cycle. Essential abilities in the realm of academic research, such as research synthesis, critical analysis, and the transmission of scientific knowledge, were taught.
Upon completing this internship, I took time to reflect on skills which have been improved. Particularly noteworthy is the possibility of expanding the range of studies considered. While I did rely heavily on scholarly publications, I may have missed some important insights had I also included grey literature such as reports from health organisations and non-peer-reviewed works. This strategy uncovered real-world implications and insights on implementing dietary advice. Adding patient feedback or case studies is another way this may have been improved. This added a useful pragmatic element to the review, showing how reducing or increasing dairy intake can alter blood pressure in hypertensive people. Using actual cases would provide a human touch to the data and show the positive effects of these dietary changes.
A more nuanced understanding of the larger consequences of dairy intake in hypertension control may have been possible with an interdisciplinary approach, relying on ideas from domains like nutrition, cardiology, and sociology. The review may have benefited from including other perspectives via cross-disciplinary work, such as cultural and socioeconomic factors in nutrition and health. After completing my internships, I have seen improvement Such as personal skills, learning skills, team working, communication, presentation, and poster preparation, confidence. I am more likely been confident and deliver my words even in complex situation now. The study's usefulness to healthcare practitioners and consumers seeking actionable guidance would have been strengthened with a stronger emphasis on practical applications and clear dietary suggestions. While the review did a good job of examining the underlying scientific principles and study results, it may have been more helpful to the general public if more effort had been put into translating this knowledge into daily dietary advice.
A more thorough assessment of the area would have been possible if more time and attention had been devoted to exploring the limits of the present research and critically debating these gaps. The ramifications of these restrictions for future study, policymaking, and therapeutic application may have been discussed. According to Alcaraz et al. (2020), including visual aids like charts, graphs, and infographics might have further boosted the accessibility and engagement of the review. Such visual components help simplify complex material, making it more palatable for people who find thick scientific text problematic.
I may have benefited from additional ideas, skills and views had I sought comments from peers and subject matter experts before completing the review. This team group effort might have improved the quality of the review and its overall analysis. Finally, it would have been helpful for me to do a deeper investigation into my own prejudices, skills and assumptions. The review may have been fairer and more impartial if I had considered how these factors affected my chosen studies and how I interpreted the results. While the literature analysis was comprehensive and analytical, it was concluded that there was room for a broader, more practical, and more inclusive investigation of the issue if these other avenues were explored. These musings will be invaluable as I go on in my academic career, inspiring me to strive for constant growth and thorough investigation.
Using the reflective approach of my recent work on dairy products and hypertension, I want to address three critical areas in building a thorough action plan for future literature reviews that will improve my study's depth, breadth, and impact. Firstly, I plan to extend the breadth of literary sources. Grey literature, such as government and non-government reports and non-peer-reviewed papers, will be included in this extension in addition to traditional peer-reviewed academic publications. Including them will broaden the research's scope, allowing it to consider important practical considerations and social effects that academic studies alone would miss.
Incorporating patient viewpoints and case studies will be a new emphasis. The review will acquire a more practical and human dimension by including qualitative data and real-world experiences, making the scientific results more accessible and approachable (Dibley et al. 2020). I am expecting to see improvements in research, making presentation skills and communication and my abilities of reading and understanding. This method is also proven to help readers better comprehend the topic by bridging the gap between theoretical research and its practical applications. Working along with professionals from different fields will be essential. The evaluation will be strengthened by including the perspectives of specialists from many fields, such as nutritionists, cardiologists, public health experts, and sociologists. By working together, we better understand the complex interplay between people's eating habits and their social, cultural, and economic circumstances.
Future assessments will focus more on applying scientific results in the real world. In order to make the study more practical for healthcare professionals and anyone looking for evidence-based guidance, I plan to concentrate more on how research results might be utilised in dietary recommendations and public health policies. The analysis of research constraints and gaps will be improved. In order to better guide future research and highlight the ever-evolving character of scientific inquiry, we will critically appraise the current corpus of knowledge and its flaws. The next step is to analyse the practical and theoretical ramifications of these gaps in knowledge.
The use of visual aids such as charts, graphs, and infographics will be enhanced to improve the review's accessibility and participation. To make difficult scientific facts more accessible to readers who may struggle with thick academic text, several graphic features may be used (Grimmer et al. 2022).
Seeking comments from peers and field experts will be a routine practice before finalising subsequent evaluations. By involving others, I can ensure that the final result is comprehensive and well-researched from all angles. We will stress the need of self-reflection on biases at every stage of the research process. Recognising and taking steps to reduce these biases is essential to conducting a fair and impartial assessment based on facts rather than prejudice.
Finally, efforts will be made to further one's education and career prospects in literature evaluation and scientific writing. This will include attending seminars, webinars, and courses on research methods, critical analysis, and the clear presentation of scientific findings. Using these methods, I want to create literature reviews that are thorough and well-researched, useful, engaging, and impactful. I am committed to lifelong learning and professional growth, and these adjustments will help me do both better in the future.
Alcaraz, K.I., Wiedt, T.L., Daniels, E.C., Yabroff, K.R., Guerra, C.E. and Wender, R.C., 2020. Understanding and addressing social determinants to advance cancer health equity in the United States: a blueprint for practice, research, and policy. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 70(1), pp.31-46.
Brown, G., Bun, M., Feldman, V., Smith, A. and Talwar, K., 2021, June. When is memorization of irrelevant training data necessary for high-accuracy learning?. In Proceedings of the 53rd annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing (pp. 123-132).
Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V. and Valentine, J.C. eds., 2019. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
Delahooke, M., 2020. Beyond Behaviours: Using Brain Science and Compassion to Understand and Solve Children's Behavioural Challenges. Hachette UK.
Dibley, L., Dickerson, S., Duffy, M. and Vandermause, R., 2020. Doing hermeneutic phenomenological research: A practical guide. Sage.
Gozali, A., 2022. EMPLOYEE PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS: Communication, Self Esteem, and Self Efficacy. AKADEMIK: Jurnal Mahasiswa Humanis, 2(3), pp.111-119.
Grimmer, J., Roberts, M.E. and Stewart, B.M., 2022. Text as data: A new framework for machine learning and the social sciences. Princeton University Press.
Khan, I.T., Nadeem, M., Imran, M., Ullah, R., Ajmal, M. and Jaspal, M.H., 2019. Antioxidant properties of Milk and dairy products: A comprehensive review of the current knowledge. Lipids in health and disease, 18, pp.1-13.
Klug, N.R., Sancho, M., Gonzales, A.L., Heppner, T.J., O’Brien, R.I.C., Hill-Eubanks, D. and Nelson, M.T., 2023. Intraluminal pressure elevates intracellular calcium and contracts CNS pericytes: Role of voltage-dependent calcium channels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(9), p.e2216421120.
Remko, V.H., 2020. Research opportunities for a more resilient post-COVID-19 supply chain–closing the gap between research findings and industry practice. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(4), pp.341-355.
Sandberg, J. and Alvesson, M., 2021. Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), pp.487-516.
van Lieshout, G.A., Lambers, T.T., Bragt, M.C. and Hettinga, K.A., 2020. How processing may affect milk protein digestion and overall physiological outcomes: A systematic review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60(14), pp.2422-2445.
Vizheh, M., Qorbani, M., Arzaghi, S.M., Muhidin, S., Javanmard, Z. and Esmaeili, M., 2020. The mental health of healthcare workers in the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders, 19, pp.1967-1978.
Strengths | Weaknesses |
1. Comprehensive Coverage: My review included a diverse range of studies, ensuring a robust understanding of the topic. 2. Critical Analysis: I rigorously examined each study's methodology, enhancing the review's credibility. 3. Identification of Research Gaps: I effectively highlighted gaps in the current literature, guiding future research. 4. Interdisciplinary Approach: Integrating insights from various fields enriched my understanding.
| 1. Detail Overload: At times, the focus on detail overshadowed the main findings. 2. Balance between Technicality and Clarity: I struggled to balance technical detail with readability. 3. Limited Scope of Sources: My reliance was mainly on peer-reviewed literature. 4. Practical Application: I could have focused more on practical dietary advice |
Opportunities | Challenges |
1. Inclusion of Grey Literature: Expanding sources to include grey literature could provide a more holistic view. 2. Incorporation of Patient Perspectives: Adding patient feedback could make the review more practical. 3. Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration: Collaborating with experts from various fields can offer comprehensive insights. 4. Focus on Practical Implications: Emphasising actionable guidance can make the review useful for healthcare practitioners and the public
| 1. Information Overload: The vast amount of data available could lead to challenges in coherent presentation. 2. Bias in Selection and Interpretation: Personal biases could skew the review's objectivity. 3. Rapidly Evolving Research: The fast-paced nature of scientific research might make some findings quickly outdated. 4. Complexity in Communication: Communicating complex scientific data understandably is challenging |
Core Skills
1. Research Skills
· Literature Analysis: Proficiency in analyzing and synthesizing information from diverse studies.
· Critical Evaluation: Ability to critically assess methodologies and findings of various research papers.
2. Scientific Understanding
· Nutritional Knowledge: Enhanced understanding of the role of dairy in hypertension prevention.
· Biochemical Insight: Grasping complex biological processes related to nutrition and health.
3. Communication Skills
· Clarity in Writing: Developing the ability to explain complex scientific concepts in an understandable manner.
· Presentation Skills: Effectively organizing and presenting information in a coherent structure.
Supporting Skills
1. Analytical Thinking
· Data Synthesis: Combining data from various sources to form comprehensive conclusions.
· Problem-Solving: Addressing challenges in understanding and presenting research findings.
2. Project Management
· Time Management: Efficiently managing time to review a vast array of literature.
· Organizational Skills: Systematically organizing research materials and findings.
3. Interpersonal Skills
· Collaborative Learning: Recognizing the value of interdisciplinary insights and peer feedback.
· Adaptability: Adjusting approaches based on new information and perspectives.
Emerging Skills
1. Critical Reflection
· Self-Evaluation: Continuously assessing and improving my research and writing processes.
· Bias Awareness: Recognizing and mitigating personal biases in research interpretation.
2. Public Health Awareness
· Health Communication: Understanding the importance of translating research into public health advice.
· Policy Implications: Recognizing the potential impact of research on health policy and practice.
