Literature review in CINAHL database to identify organization supporting cancer care ( NGOs and community based) in NSW Australia
Budget: ₹12,500 – ₹37,500 INR
I’m compiling a literature review for a well-structured document that summarizes current findings and highlights research gaps.
Literature review in CINAHL and scopus database to identify organization supporting cancer care ( NGOs and community based) in NSW Australia
Scope
• Draw on two source types only: peer-reviewed journal articles and relevant government or organizational reports.
• Target recent publications (ideally the past 10 years) unless an earlier work is seminal.
Deliverables
1. A detailed outline that maps the support organisations in cancer care identified.
2. An annotated bibliography (≈ 20 key sources) noting study objectives, methods, principal findings, and limitations.
3. A synthesized narrative review (3,000 words) that threads the evidence together, contrasts differing viewpoints, and identifies actionable gaps for future research.
4. Proper in-text citations and a reference list in Vancouver.
Key expectations
• Critical analysis rather than simple description.
• Clear, academic English.
• Original work—no AI-generated “copy-paste” content; I’ll run plagiarism checks.
• Ability to iterate quickly based on feedback.
If you’re experienced in public-health literature reviews and comfortable working with journal databases and grey literature, I’d love to collaborate.
Literature review in CINAHL and scopus database to identify organization supporting cancer care ( NGOs and community based) in NSW Australia
Scope
• Draw on two source types only: peer-reviewed journal articles and relevant government or organizational reports.
• Target recent publications (ideally the past 10 years) unless an earlier work is seminal.
Deliverables
1. A detailed outline that maps the support organisations in cancer care identified.
2. An annotated bibliography (≈ 20 key sources) noting study objectives, methods, principal findings, and limitations.
3. A synthesized narrative review (3,000 words) that threads the evidence together, contrasts differing viewpoints, and identifies actionable gaps for future research.
4. Proper in-text citations and a reference list in Vancouver.
Key expectations
• Critical analysis rather than simple description.
• Clear, academic English.
• Original work—no AI-generated “copy-paste” content; I’ll run plagiarism checks.
• Ability to iterate quickly based on feedback.
If you’re experienced in public-health literature reviews and comfortable working with journal databases and grey literature, I’d love to collaborate.