Assignment Prompt & Instructions
It is due tmr before 11:59 CST. Please let me know if any questions or concerns. FOLLOW ALL DIRECTIONS PLEASE
**files (3)**
– ## LiteratureReviewAssignment.docx
– ## Rubric-LiteratureEvaluationTable.pdf
– LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx
**## LiteratureReviewAssignment.docx**
Identify a barrier or issue in health care that you want to address through your capstone project paper
(Reduction of healthcare workers' burnout in a hospital environment by improving workload balance. Perform a literature review on the barrier or issue using the GCU Library.
**Present 8-10 peer-reviewed primary research articles**. These articles should be either
**qualitative or quantitative.**
Literature Evaluation table attached separately
Here are some articles, that my professor prefers me include:
Articles:
Li, L. Z., Yang, P., Singer, S. J., Pfeffer, J., Mathur, M. B., & Shanafelt, T. (2024). Nurse Burnout and Patient Safety, Satisfaction, and Quality of Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
_JAMA Network Open_,
_7_(11), e2443059.
[https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43059](https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43059)
Hernandez, I., Söderström, M., Rudman, A., & Dahlgren, A. (2024).
_Under pressure—Nursing staff’s perspectives on working hours and recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study_.
_International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 7_, 100225.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100225](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100225) (
[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11321373/?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
Panagioti, M., Panagopoulou, E., Bower, P., et al. (2023). Controlled interventions to reduce burnout in physicians: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
_JAMA Network Open, 6_(2), e2254745.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54745](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54745)
Rotenstein, L. S., Torre, M., Ramos, M. A., et al. (2021). Prevalence of burnout among physicians: A systematic review.
_JAMA, 326_(11), 1131–1150.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1337](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1337)
Brooks Carthon, J. M., Hatfield, L., Brom, H., Houton, M., Kelly-Hellyer, E., Schlak, A., Aiken, L. H., & Sloane, D. M. (2021). System-level improvements in work environments lead to lower nurse burnout and higher patient satisfaction.
_Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 36_(1), 7–13.
[https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000475](https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000475)
Willard-Grace, R., Knox, M., Huang, B., Hammer, H., Kivlahan, C., & Grumbach, K. (2019). Burnout and health care workforce turnover.
_Annals of Family Medicine, 17_(1), 36–41.
[https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2338](https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2338)
Jessie Childs, Catherine Cohen, Silvia Pignata, Eva Bezak, & Mark Tie. (2023). Workplace interventions to improve well-being and reduce burnout for nurses, physicians and allied healthcare professionals: a systematic review.
_BMJ Open_,
_13_(6).
[https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071203](https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071203)
Mohammad S. Razai, Pavan Kooner, & Azeem Majeed. (2023). Strategies and Interventions to Improve Healthcare Professionals’ Well-Being and Reduce Burnout.
_Journal of Primary Care & Community Health_,
_14_.
[https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/21501319231178641](https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/21501319231178641)
You may use either health care or nursing peer-reviewed journals; however, at least half of the primary articles must come from peer-reviewed nursing journals. The peer-reviewed articles must consist of research published within the last 5 years.
Use the "HLT-494 – Literature Evaluation Table" template to document your detailed assessment of each primary study. This document helps break down the components of each article to ensure the article meets the requirements for a professional nursing paper. Ensure that each of your articles provides information that meets each criterion listed. Assess the research and provide a detailed and clear explanation how each article supports your capstone project and evidence-based practice (between five and six sentences).
**## Rubric-LiteratureEvaluationTable.pdf**
5/30/26, 12:26 PM
Page 1 of 2about:srcdoc
Literature Evaluation Table – Rubric Total 50 points
Criterion 1. Unsatisfactory
2. Less Than
Satisfactory
3. Satisfactory 4. Good 5. Excellent
Summary of Health Care
Administration Issue
Summary of Health Care
Administration Issue
0 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
not present.
1.63 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
1.88 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
present.
2.13 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
detailed.
2.5 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
thorough.
Description of How
Article Relates to Health
Care Barrier
Description of How Article
Relates to Health Care
Barrier
0 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is not
present.
3.25 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
3.75 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
present.
4.25 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
detailed.
5 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
thorough.
Explanation of Articles as
Quantitative or
Qualitative
Explanation of Articles as
Quantitative or Qualitative
0 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is not
present.
3.25 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is present
but lacks detail or is
incomplete.
3.75 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is present.
4.25 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is detailed.
5 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is thorough.
Purpose Statement
Purpose Statement
0 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
not present.
1.63 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
1.88 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
present.
2.13 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
detailed.
2.5 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
thorough.
Research Question
Research Question
0 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is not present.
1.63 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is present but lacks
detail or is incomplete.
1.88 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is present.
2.13 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is detailed.
2.5 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is thorough.
Explanation of Outcomes
Explanation of Outcomes
0 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
not present.
3.25 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
3.75 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
present.
4.25 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
detailed.
5 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
thorough.
Description of Setting
Description of Setting
0 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
not present.
1.63 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
1.88 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
present.
2.13 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
detailed.
2.5 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
thorough.
Sample and Method
Sample and Method
0 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is not
present.
3.25 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is present
but lacks detail or is
incomplete.
3.75 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is present.
4.25 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is detailed.
5 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is thorough.
Key Findings and
Recommendations of
Researcher
Key Findings and
0 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
3.25 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
3.75 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
4.25 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
5 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
5/30/26, 12:26 PM
Page 2 of 2about:srcdoc
Recommendations of
Researcher
researcher for each article
is not present.
researcher for each article
is present but lacks detail
or is incomplete.
researcher for each article
is present.
researcher for each article
is detailed.
researcher for each article
is thorough.
Thesis Development and
Purpose
Thesis Development and
Purpose
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible
overall purpose or
organizing claim.
2.28 points
Thesis is insufficiently
developed or vague.
Purpose is not clear.
2.63 points
Thesis is apparent and
appropriate to purpose.
2.98 points
Thesis is clear and
forecasts the development
of the paper. Thesis is
descriptive and reflective
of the arguments and
appropriate to the
purpose.
3.5 points
Thesis is comprehensive
and contains the essence
of the paper. Thesis
statement makes the
purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and
Construction
Argument Logic and
Construction
0 points
Statement of purpose is
not justified by the
conclusion. The conclusion
does not support the claim
made. Argument is
incoherent and uses
noncredible sources.
2.6 points
Sufficient justification of
claims is lacking. Argument
lacks consistent unity.
There are obvious flaws in
the logic. Some sources
have questionable
credibility.
3 points
Argument is orderly, but
may have a few
inconsistencies. The
argument presents
minimal justification of
claims. Argument logically,
but not thoroughly,
supports the purpose.
Sources used are credible.
Introduction and
conclusion bracket the
thesis.
3.4 points
Argument shows logical
progression. Techniques of
argumentation are evident.
There is a smooth
progression of claims from
introduction to conclusion.
Most sources are
authoritative.
4 points
Clear and convincing
argument presents a
persuasive claim in a
distinctive and compelling
manner. All sources are
authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing
Includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar,
language use.
0 points
Surface errors are
pervasive enough that they
impede communication of
meaning. Inappropriate
word choice or sentence
construction is used.
1.63 points
Frequent and repetitive
mechanical errors distract
the reader. Inconsistencies
in language choice
(register) or word choice
are present. Sentence
structure is correct but not
varied.
1.88 points
Some mechanical errors or
typos are present, but they
are not overly distracting
to the reader. Correct and
varied sentence structure
and audience-appropriate
language are employed.
2.13 points
Prose is largely free of
mechanical errors,
although a few may be
present. The writer uses a
variety of effective
sentence structures and
figures of speech.
2.5 points
Writer is clearly in
command of standard,
written, academic English.
Paper Format
Use of appropriate style for
the major and assignment.
0 points
Template is not used
appropriately, or
documentation format is
rarely followed correctly.
1.63 points
Appropriate template is
used, but some elements
are missing or mistaken. A
lack of control with
formatting is apparent.
1.88 points
Appropriate template is
used. Formatting is correct,
although some minor
errors may be present.
2.13 points
Appropriate template is
fully used. There are
virtually no errors in
formatting style.
2.5 points
All format elements are
correct.
Documentation of
Sources
Citations, footnotes,
references, bibliography,
etc., as appropriate to
assignment and style.
0 points
Sources are not
documented.
1.63 points
Documentation of sources
is inconsistent or incorrect,
as appropriate to
assignment and style, with
numerous formatting
errors.
1.88 points
Sources are documented,
as appropriate to
assignment and style,
although some formatting
errors may be present.
2.13 points
Sources are documented,
as appropriate to
assignment and style, and
format is mostly correct.
2.5 points
Sources are completely
and correctly documented,
as appropriate to
assignment and style, and
format is free of error.
© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
**LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literatureevaluationtable-docx-10554707)
**LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literatureevaluationtable-docx-10554707)
**## LiteratureReviewAssignment.docx**
Identify a barrier or issue in health care that you want to address through your capstone project paper
(Reduction of healthcare workers' burnout in a hospital environment by improving workload balance. Perform a literature review on the barrier or issue using the GCU Library.
**Present 8-10 peer-reviewed primary research articles**. These articles should be either
**qualitative or quantitative.**
Literature Evaluation table attached separately
Here are some articles, that my professor prefers me include:
Articles:
Li, L. Z., Yang, P., Singer, S. J., Pfeffer, J., Mathur, M. B., & Shanafelt, T. (2024). Nurse Burnout and Patient Safety, Satisfaction, and Quality of Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
_JAMA Network Open_,
_7_(11), e2443059.
[https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43059](https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43059)
Hernandez, I., Söderström, M., Rudman, A., & Dahlgren, A. (2024).
_Under pressure—Nursing staff’s perspectives on working hours and recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study_.
_International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 7_, 100225.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100225](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100225) (
[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11321373/?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
Panagioti, M., Panagopoulou, E., Bower, P., et al. (2023). Controlled interventions to reduce burnout in physicians: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
_JAMA Network Open, 6_(2), e2254745.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54745](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54745)
Rotenstein, L. S., Torre, M., Ramos, M. A., et al. (2021). Prevalence of burnout among physicians: A systematic review.
_JAMA, 326_(11), 1131–1150.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1337](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1337)
Brooks Carthon, J. M., Hatfield, L., Brom, H., Houton, M., Kelly-Hellyer, E., Schlak, A., Aiken, L. H., & Sloane, D. M. (2021). System-level improvements in work environments lead to lower nurse burnout and higher patient satisfaction.
_Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 36_(1), 7–13.
[https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000475](https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000475)
Willard-Grace, R., Knox, M., Huang, B., Hammer, H., Kivlahan, C., & Grumbach, K. (2019). Burnout and health care workforce turnover.
_Annals of Family Medicine, 17_(1), 36–41.
[https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2338](https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2338)
Jessie Childs, Catherine Cohen, Silvia Pignata, Eva Bezak, & Mark Tie. (2023). Workplace interventions to improve well-being and reduce burnout for nurses, physicians and allied healthcare professionals: a systematic review.
_BMJ Open_,
_13_(6).
[https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071203](https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071203)
Mohammad S. Razai, Pavan Kooner, & Azeem Majeed. (2023). Strategies and Interventions to Improve Healthcare Professionals’ Well-Being and Reduce Burnout.
_Journal of Primary Care & Community Health_,
_14_.
[https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/21501319231178641](https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/21501319231178641)
You may use either health care or nursing peer-reviewed journals; however, at least half of the primary articles must come from peer-reviewed nursing journals. The peer-reviewed articles must consist of research published within the last 5 years.
Use the "HLT-494 – Literature Evaluation Table" template to document your detailed assessment of each primary study. This document helps break down the components of each article to ensure the article meets the requirements for a professional nursing paper. Ensure that each of your articles provides information that meets each criterion listed. Assess the research and provide a detailed and clear explanation how each article supports your capstone project and evidence-based practice (between five and six sentences).
**## Rubric-LiteratureEvaluationTable.pdf**
5/30/26, 12:26 PM
Page 1 of 2about:srcdoc
Literature Evaluation Table – Rubric Total 50 points
Criterion 1. Unsatisfactory
2. Less Than
Satisfactory
3. Satisfactory 4. Good 5. Excellent
Summary of Health Care
Administration Issue
Summary of Health Care
Administration Issue
0 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
not present.
1.63 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
1.88 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
present.
2.13 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
detailed.
2.5 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
thorough.
Description of How
Article Relates to Health
Care Barrier
Description of How Article
Relates to Health Care
Barrier
0 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is not
present.
3.25 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
3.75 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
present.
4.25 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
detailed.
5 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
thorough.
Explanation of Articles as
Quantitative or
Qualitative
Explanation of Articles as
Quantitative or Qualitative
0 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is not
present.
3.25 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is present
but lacks detail or is
incomplete.
3.75 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is present.
4.25 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is detailed.
5 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is thorough.
Purpose Statement
Purpose Statement
0 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
not present.
1.63 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
1.88 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
present.
2.13 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
detailed.
2.5 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
thorough.
Research Question
Research Question
0 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is not present.
1.63 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is present but lacks
detail or is incomplete.
1.88 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is present.
2.13 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is detailed.
2.5 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is thorough.
Explanation of Outcomes
Explanation of Outcomes
0 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
not present.
3.25 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
3.75 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
present.
4.25 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
detailed.
5 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
thorough.
Description of Setting
Description of Setting
0 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
not present.
1.63 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
1.88 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
present.
2.13 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
detailed.
2.5 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
thorough.
Sample and Method
Sample and Method
0 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is not
present.
3.25 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is present
but lacks detail or is
incomplete.
3.75 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is present.
4.25 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is detailed.
5 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is thorough.
Key Findings and
Recommendations of
Researcher
Key Findings and
0 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
3.25 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
3.75 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
4.25 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
5 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
5/30/26, 12:26 PM
Page 2 of 2about:srcdoc
Recommendations of
Researcher
researcher for each article
is not present.
researcher for each article
is present but lacks detail
or is incomplete.
researcher for each article
is present.
researcher for each article
is detailed.
researcher for each article
is thorough.
Thesis Development and
Purpose
Thesis Development and
Purpose
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible
overall purpose or
organizing claim.
2.28 points
Thesis is insufficiently
developed or vague.
Purpose is not clear.
2.63 points
Thesis is apparent and
appropriate to purpose.
2.98 points
Thesis is clear and
forecasts the development
of the paper. Thesis is
descriptive and reflective
of the arguments and
appropriate to the
purpose.
3.5 points
Thesis is comprehensive
and contains the essence
of the paper. Thesis
statement makes the
purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and
Construction
Argument Logic and
Construction
0 points
Statement of purpose is
not justified by the
conclusion. The conclusion
does not support the claim
made. Argument is
incoherent and uses
noncredible sources.
2.6 points
Sufficient justification of
claims is lacking. Argument
lacks consistent unity.
There are obvious flaws in
the logic. Some sources
have questionable
credibility.
3 points
Argument is orderly, but
may have a few
inconsistencies. The
argument presents
minimal justification of
claims. Argument logically,
but not thoroughly,
supports the purpose.
Sources used are credible.
Introduction and
conclusion bracket the
thesis.
3.4 points
Argument shows logical
progression. Techniques of
argumentation are evident.
There is a smooth
progression of claims from
introduction to conclusion.
Most sources are
authoritative.
4 points
Clear and convincing
argument presents a
persuasive claim in a
distinctive and compelling
manner. All sources are
authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing
Includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar,
language use.
0 points
Surface errors are
pervasive enough that they
impede communication of
meaning. Inappropriate
word choice or sentence
construction is used.
1.63 points
Frequent and repetitive
mechanical errors distract
the reader. Inconsistencies
in language choice
(register) or word choice
are present. Sentence
structure is correct but not
varied.
1.88 points
Some mechanical errors or
typos are present, but they
are not overly distracting
to the reader. Correct and
varied sentence structure
and audience-appropriate
language are employed.
2.13 points
Prose is largely free of
mechanical errors,
although a few may be
present. The writer uses a
variety of effective
sentence structures and
figures of speech.
2.5 points
Writer is clearly in
command of standard,
written, academic English.
Paper Format
Use of appropriate style for
the major and assignment.
0 points
Template is not used
appropriately, or
documentation format is
rarely followed correctly.
1.63 points
Appropriate template is
used, but some elements
are missing or mistaken. A
lack of control with
formatting is apparent.
1.88 points
Appropriate template is
used. Formatting is correct,
although some minor
errors may be present.
2.13 points
Appropriate template is
fully used. There are
virtually no errors in
formatting style.
2.5 points
All format elements are
correct.
Documentation of
Sources
Citations, footnotes,
references, bibliography,
etc., as appropriate to
assignment and style.
0 points
Sources are not
documented.
1.63 points
Documentation of sources
is inconsistent or incorrect,
as appropriate to
assignment and style, with
numerous formatting
errors.
1.88 points
Sources are documented,
as appropriate to
assignment and style,
although some formatting
errors may be present.
2.13 points
Sources are documented,
as appropriate to
assignment and style, and
format is mostly correct.
2.5 points
Sources are completely
and correctly documented,
as appropriate to
assignment and style, and
format is free of error.
© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
**LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literatureevaluationtable-docx-10554707)
**## LiteratureReviewAssignment.docx**
Identify a barrier or issue in health care that you want to address through your capstone project paper
(Reduction of healthcare workers' burnout in a hospital environment by improving workload balance. Perform a literature review on the barrier or issue using the GCU Library.
**Present 8-10 peer-reviewed primary research articles**. These articles should be either
**qualitative or quantitative.**
Literature Evaluation table attached separately
Here are some articles, that my professor prefers me include:
Articles:
Li, L. Z., Yang, P., Singer, S. J., Pfeffer, J., Mathur, M. B., & Shanafelt, T. (2024). Nurse Burnout and Patient Safety, Satisfaction, and Quality of Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
_JAMA Network Open_,
_7_(11), e2443059.
[https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43059](https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.43059)
Hernandez, I., Söderström, M., Rudman, A., & Dahlgren, A. (2024).
_Under pressure—Nursing staff’s perspectives on working hours and recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study_.
_International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 7_, 100225.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100225](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100225) (
[pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11321373/?utm_source=chatgpt.com))
Panagioti, M., Panagopoulou, E., Bower, P., et al. (2023). Controlled interventions to reduce burnout in physicians: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
_JAMA Network Open, 6_(2), e2254745.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54745](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54745)
Rotenstein, L. S., Torre, M., Ramos, M. A., et al. (2021). Prevalence of burnout among physicians: A systematic review.
_JAMA, 326_(11), 1131–1150.
[https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1337](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1337)
Brooks Carthon, J. M., Hatfield, L., Brom, H., Houton, M., Kelly-Hellyer, E., Schlak, A., Aiken, L. H., & Sloane, D. M. (2021). System-level improvements in work environments lead to lower nurse burnout and higher patient satisfaction.
_Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 36_(1), 7–13.
[https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000475](https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000475)
Willard-Grace, R., Knox, M., Huang, B., Hammer, H., Kivlahan, C., & Grumbach, K. (2019). Burnout and health care workforce turnover.
_Annals of Family Medicine, 17_(1), 36–41.
[https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2338](https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2338)
Jessie Childs, Catherine Cohen, Silvia Pignata, Eva Bezak, & Mark Tie. (2023). Workplace interventions to improve well-being and reduce burnout for nurses, physicians and allied healthcare professionals: a systematic review.
_BMJ Open_,
_13_(6).
[https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071203](https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071203)
Mohammad S. Razai, Pavan Kooner, & Azeem Majeed. (2023). Strategies and Interventions to Improve Healthcare Professionals’ Well-Being and Reduce Burnout.
_Journal of Primary Care & Community Health_,
_14_.
[https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/21501319231178641](https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/21501319231178641)
You may use either health care or nursing peer-reviewed journals; however, at least half of the primary articles must come from peer-reviewed nursing journals. The peer-reviewed articles must consist of research published within the last 5 years.
Use the "HLT-494 – Literature Evaluation Table" template to document your detailed assessment of each primary study. This document helps break down the components of each article to ensure the article meets the requirements for a professional nursing paper. Ensure that each of your articles provides information that meets each criterion listed. Assess the research and provide a detailed and clear explanation how each article supports your capstone project and evidence-based practice (between five and six sentences).
**## Rubric-LiteratureEvaluationTable.pdf**
5/30/26, 12:26 PM
Page 1 of 2about:srcdoc
Literature Evaluation Table – Rubric Total 50 points
Criterion 1. Unsatisfactory
2. Less Than
Satisfactory
3. Satisfactory 4. Good 5. Excellent
Summary of Health Care
Administration Issue
Summary of Health Care
Administration Issue
0 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
not present.
1.63 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
1.88 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
present.
2.13 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
detailed.
2.5 points
The summary of the health
care administration issue is
thorough.
Description of How
Article Relates to Health
Care Barrier
Description of How Article
Relates to Health Care
Barrier
0 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is not
present.
3.25 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
3.75 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
present.
4.25 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
detailed.
5 points
The description of how
each article relates to the
health care barrier is
thorough.
Explanation of Articles as
Quantitative or
Qualitative
Explanation of Articles as
Quantitative or Qualitative
0 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is not
present.
3.25 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is present
but lacks detail or is
incomplete.
3.75 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is present.
4.25 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is detailed.
5 points
The explanation of whether
each article is quantitative
or qualitative is thorough.
Purpose Statement
Purpose Statement
0 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
not present.
1.63 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
1.88 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
present.
2.13 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
detailed.
2.5 points
The description of the
purpose for each article is
thorough.
Research Question
Research Question
0 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is not present.
1.63 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is present but lacks
detail or is incomplete.
1.88 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is present.
2.13 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is detailed.
2.5 points
The description of the
research question for each
article is thorough.
Explanation of Outcomes
Explanation of Outcomes
0 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
not present.
3.25 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
3.75 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
present.
4.25 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
detailed.
5 points
The explanation of
outcomes for each article is
thorough.
Description of Setting
Description of Setting
0 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
not present.
1.63 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
present but lacks detail or
is incomplete.
1.88 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
present.
2.13 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
detailed.
2.5 points
The description of the
setting for each article is
thorough.
Sample and Method
Sample and Method
0 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is not
present.
3.25 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is present
but lacks detail or is
incomplete.
3.75 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is present.
4.25 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is detailed.
5 points
The description of the
sample and method used
in each article is thorough.
Key Findings and
Recommendations of
Researcher
Key Findings and
0 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
3.25 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
3.75 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
4.25 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
5 points
The description of key
findings and
recommendations of the
5/30/26, 12:26 PM
Page 2 of 2about:srcdoc
Recommendations of
Researcher
researcher for each article
is not present.
researcher for each article
is present but lacks detail
or is incomplete.
researcher for each article
is present.
researcher for each article
is detailed.
researcher for each article
is thorough.
Thesis Development and
Purpose
Thesis Development and
Purpose
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible
overall purpose or
organizing claim.
2.28 points
Thesis is insufficiently
developed or vague.
Purpose is not clear.
2.63 points
Thesis is apparent and
appropriate to purpose.
2.98 points
Thesis is clear and
forecasts the development
of the paper. Thesis is
descriptive and reflective
of the arguments and
appropriate to the
purpose.
3.5 points
Thesis is comprehensive
and contains the essence
of the paper. Thesis
statement makes the
purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and
Construction
Argument Logic and
Construction
0 points
Statement of purpose is
not justified by the
conclusion. The conclusion
does not support the claim
made. Argument is
incoherent and uses
noncredible sources.
2.6 points
Sufficient justification of
claims is lacking. Argument
lacks consistent unity.
There are obvious flaws in
the logic. Some sources
have questionable
credibility.
3 points
Argument is orderly, but
may have a few
inconsistencies. The
argument presents
minimal justification of
claims. Argument logically,
but not thoroughly,
supports the purpose.
Sources used are credible.
Introduction and
conclusion bracket the
thesis.
3.4 points
Argument shows logical
progression. Techniques of
argumentation are evident.
There is a smooth
progression of claims from
introduction to conclusion.
Most sources are
authoritative.
4 points
Clear and convincing
argument presents a
persuasive claim in a
distinctive and compelling
manner. All sources are
authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing
Includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar,
language use.
0 points
Surface errors are
pervasive enough that they
impede communication of
meaning. Inappropriate
word choice or sentence
construction is used.
1.63 points
Frequent and repetitive
mechanical errors distract
the reader. Inconsistencies
in language choice
(register) or word choice
are present. Sentence
structure is correct but not
varied.
1.88 points
Some mechanical errors or
typos are present, but they
are not overly distracting
to the reader. Correct and
varied sentence structure
and audience-appropriate
language are employed.
2.13 points
Prose is largely free of
mechanical errors,
although a few may be
present. The writer uses a
variety of effective
sentence structures and
figures of speech.
2.5 points
Writer is clearly in
command of standard,
written, academic English.
Paper Format
Use of appropriate style for
the major and assignment.
0 points
Template is not used
appropriately, or
documentation format is
rarely followed correctly.
1.63 points
Appropriate template is
used, but some elements
are missing or mistaken. A
lack of control with
formatting is apparent.
1.88 points
Appropriate template is
used. Formatting is correct,
although some minor
errors may be present.
2.13 points
Appropriate template is
fully used. There are
virtually no errors in
formatting style.
2.5 points
All format elements are
correct.
Documentation of
Sources
Citations, footnotes,
references, bibliography,
etc., as appropriate to
assignment and style.
0 points
Sources are not
documented.
1.63 points
Documentation of sources
is inconsistent or incorrect,
as appropriate to
assignment and style, with
numerous formatting
errors.
1.88 points
Sources are documented,
as appropriate to
assignment and style,
although some formatting
errors may be present.
2.13 points
Sources are documented,
as appropriate to
assignment and style, and
format is mostly correct.
2.5 points
Sources are completely
and correctly documented,
as appropriate to
assignment and style, and
format is free of error.
© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
**LiteratureEvaluationTable.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literatureevaluationtable-docx-10554707)