DSW Capstone Literature Review

I’m nearing the final phase of my Doctor of Social Work capstone and need a thorough, publish-ready Systematic Literature Review that synthesizes what peer-reviewed journals have discovered so far within the broad field of Social Work.
The primary goal is to summarize existing research—trends, consensus, and conflicting findings—rather than critique methods or hunt for unexplored gaps. All material must therefore come from reputable, peer-reviewed sources; books, conference papers, or grey literature are out of scope for this project.

Key requirements and deliverables
• Search strategy: database list (e.g., PsycINFO, SocINDEX, PubMed, Web of Science), final search strings, and inclusion/exclusion criteria grounded in PRISMA guidelines.
• PRISMA flow diagram and a table of screened/included studies.
• Quality appraisal of each study using an appropriate Social Work–focused tool (e.g., CASP, JBI).
• Thematic or narrative synthesis (2,500–3,000 words) that clearly organizes findings by theme, population, intervention, and outcome.
• Implications section tying the evidence back to Social Work practice and policy.
• Reference list formatted in APA 7th.

I will provide the capstone outline, formatting template, and any university-specific rubrics once we start. Please let me know your proposed timeline, preferred databases, and any previous SLR experience in Social Work so we can align expectations quickly

I have specfic instructor feedback to integrate: Hi Chad, This iteration reflects improvement with attention to particular aspects of previous feedback. Moving ahead work to integrate relevance for research. Why is this research demographic important connect to sports social work.

Clearly articulate research question at the end of introduction to the problem as well as clarify and align method section with the research question.

---interventions that support identity reconstruction for collegiate athletes transitioning out of competitive sports?

Several of the journals reported interventions that facilitate transition.

Among the interventions identified: diversification of interest, preparation, mentoring, MH, coaching, family support, advocating for institutional responsibility to address, organizational approaches, multi-dimensional services, vocational development, psychosocial planning.

Review existing literature to ensure that you have culled the existing research. Consult with librarian if needed.

The discussion section requires that you cite primary findings and interpret the meaning of the findings. Several journals pointed to institutional/organizational responsibility, especially to particular demographics.

Make stronger connections throughout and align accordingly.

I encourage you to seek writing resources to further scholarly writing and synthesis development.

This is an important and contemporary issue.

Take care,

Dr. Slater



Previous Feedback:

Hi Chad, excellent topic for research and preliminary introduction. Doctoral level writing requires robust citations throughout the manuscript, which requires an exhaustive search of the literature related to the question and topic. Review your exclusion/inclusion criteria as needed.

6 journals is inadequate and insufficient.

Work to address populations at greater risk for difficulty with transition (demographics is important to SW research.

Chad,

I want to acknowledge the thoughtful work reflected in your manuscript and the important contribution your topic can make to Sports Social Work. Your review addresses a meaningful transition that is often overlooked when collegiate athletes conclude their competitive careers: the process of reconstructing identity, purpose, and belonging beyond sport.

Strengths:

One of the strongest aspects of your review is the clear connection between your research question and the broader practice problem. You effectively establish that transitioning out of collegiate athletics involves more than managing psychological symptoms. Your attention to athletic identity, role loss, social support, career preparation, and institutional resources demonstrates an understanding of the multidimensional nature of this experience.

I particularly appreciated your recognition that a strong athletic identity is not inherently problematic. Your discussion appropriately distinguishes the positive aspects of athletic identity from the challenges that may arise when an athlete's sense of self is exclusively tied to competitive sport.

Your Results and Discussion sections also demonstrate an important level of scholarly discernment. You recognize that the existing literature provides stronger evidence regarding factors associated with successful adjustment than it does regarding the effectiveness of structured identity reconstruction interventions. This distinction is essential and provides a sound foundation for your subsequent conceptual and practice application papers.

Your use of the SPICE framework, narrative synthesis, and MMAT reflects an intentional approach to organizing and critically examining the evidence. I also appreciated your inclusion of demographic and institutional considerations, particularly the recognition that access to transition resources may differ across athlete populations and NCAA divisions.

Areas for Improvement:

The most significant area requiring attention is the consistency and transparency of your systematic review methodology.

PRISMA Reporting and Study Selection: Your manuscript acknowledges that some original screening counts were not retained. However, Appendix B contains numerical inconsistencies. Specifically, 157 screened records minus 146 exclusions leaves 11 records, whereas your table reports 13 full-text assessments and 13 included studies. These figures must be reconciled using the original screening documentation wherever possible. If particular counts cannot be verified, it is preferable to acknowledge missing information rather than present reconstructed figures as confirmed results.

Consistency of Included Studies: Your extraction and quality assessment tables contain 13 studies, but your Results section discusses the Rohrs-Cordes and Paule-Koba (2018) intervention study, which is not represented in those tables. Review your final inclusion decisions and ensure that the Results, extraction table, appraisal table, and PRISMA accounting describe the same evidence set.

Search Strategy: Although your search approach is clearly described, additional information is needed to support reproducibility. Identify the individual databases searched through EBSCOhost and provide database-specific search strings, dates, and filters when available.

Quality Assessment: Your decision to use the MMAT and avoid reducing methodological quality to a single numerical score is appropriate. However, the appraisal table would benefit from more detailed criterion-level judgments for each study. This would make your conclusions about methodological quality easier to evaluate.

Critical Synthesis: Continue strengthening the distinction between observational findings, perceived support needs, and tested intervention outcomes. Your manuscript generally demonstrates this distinction well, but additional comparisons among study designs and findings would deepen the critical analysis.

APA 7 and Final Editing: Several areas require proofreading, including duplicated text, appendix cross-references, inconsistent citations, and incomplete reference information. The Cota Powell (2024) reference, in particular, contains a placeholder that should be resolved before final submission.

Overall Feedback:

Chad, your review establishes a meaningful foundation for your doctoral capstone. I especially appreciate your effort to frame identity reconstruction through a person-in-environment perspective rather than treating athletic retirement exclusively as an individual psychological adjustment issue.

As you transition into your conceptual paper and practice application paper, your proposed integration of Narrative Theory and Identity Theory offers a promising direction. Your Narrative Mapping Intervention Guide may address an important practice gap, but remember to distinguish between an intervention that is theoretically informed and one that has been empirically demonstrated to be effective.

Your strongest opportunity for improvement is methodological precision. A systematic literature review must allow readers to understand exactly how the evidence was identified, selected, evaluated, and synthesized. Strengthening that transparency will make your findings and subsequent practice recommendations more credible.

Thank you for the effort you invested in this work. I look forward to seeing how you continue developing this important topic.