Critical Appraisal of a Paper

Running head: CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A PAPER
Critical appraisal of a paper
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A PAPER
Question 1:
In the study conducted by Bond et al. (2012), Quasi-experimental, 2-year longitudinal
study design was applied as epidemiological study design. There are two features of Quesi
experiments that were used in this paper. The first feature is that unlike the true experiment, the
participants who were participated in the study were with a specific condition such as smoking
habits (Brown, Currie & Kenworthy, 2015). The second features are both independent and
dependent variables are present in the Quesi- experiments, unlike true experiment where no
variables are present. In the current study, the dependent variable is smoking habits which
dependent the independent variables such as the present in the study such as residents or housing
accommodation.
Question 2:
In the study conducted by Bond et al. (2012), two research questions are present such
as the first question is does having an HI lead to a reduction in smoking or to an intention to quit
smoking? And second is Could this be explained by improvements in mental health and/or
reductions in stress subsequent to the HI?. The current context, Two research hypothesis can be
formed based on these two research question.
The first hypothesis would be house improvements or residential improvement leads to
the reduction in smoking or to an intention to quit smoking.
The second hypothesis would be an improvement in mental health or reduction of stress
subsequent to the housing improvement .

2
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A PAPER
Question 3:
In the study conducted by Bond et al. (2012), study factors were housing improvements
or residential improvements, reduction in smoking as well as mental health status. These factors
are such as the smoking status of the participants and the mental health of the participants which
were compared between residents’ smoking and intention to quit smoking for HI group with a
non-HI group of participants. These were measured by measuring the mental health of the
participants through SF-12v2 scales, along with the self-reported experience of each participant
and General Practitioner (GP) who consulted the participants with smoking habits, anxiety, and
depression of each participant in the last 12 months.
Question 4:
In the study conducted by Bond et al. (2012), total 1062 individuals with the habits of
smoking have participated in the study. In the current context, the outcome factors are a mental
status of the participants, the gender of the participants, the socio-demographic status of patients,
housing status, economic status, and health behaviors, smoking. To measure these outcomes,
four multivariate models were used examining the association between HI and intention to quit
and the three assessments of mental health. All of these models were adjusted for the
sociodemographics status of participants and health measures such as SF12 mental health scores
of 2008. The measurement was also taken with respect to the gender of each participant in order
to gain an understanding of the association.
Question 5:
Considering Table 2 presented in the study conducted by Bond et al. (2012), although the
significant association between the study factor and outcome factors few factors were not related.

3
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A PAPER
In the currents study, the study factors were the house improvements is significantly associated
with the reduction in smoking habits whereas the outcome factors are the mental health status of
the participants with respect to the HI and non-HI status of each participant, behavior changes as
well as smoking status. Therefore, it was observed that housing improvement in participants
according to the socio-demographic status of participants such as living in a disadvantageous
area is associated with intention of quit smoking rather than the actual reduction of smoking
habits. However, housing factors not in terms of property rather improvements of the status of
the house such renewal or improvement of an existing house which contributed to the large
reduction of smoking habits. Considering the mental health status of the participants in the
second hypothesis, improved mental health is related to a reduction in smoking but not with
housing improvement.
The result of the study suggested that there was a significant difference in the prevalence
of smoking at the baseline (2006) two groups where the minimization of smoking rates
approximately 10% lowered from the previous rate. This result further suggested that there is no
significant relationship between the HI improvements with intention of quitting smoking; it is
only related to the features of house not allocation. The underlying reason behind it is that
Housing improvements factor is not depending on the smoking status of the participants. A
radical change in someone’s existing circumstances such as the move to a new house or having
any changes existential house may act as a transitional factor from smoking habits to quit
smoking. Therefore, HI program can be an effective way for reducing smoking habits. On the
other hands, self-efficacy and beliefs as well counseling of GP has a significant effect on the
reduction of smoking habits in participants. The study also highlighted that housing