Limited-time discount for students! | Solutions starting at $6 each

Sample Assignment on Epidemiology PDF

Added on - 14 Jun 2021

  • 12


  • 3539


  • 108


  • 0


Trusted by +2 million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 4 of 12 pages
Running head: EPIDEMEOLOGY1EpidemiologyStudent’s NameDate of Submission
EPIDEMEOLOGY2Picot questionDoes the desk based employees (P) undergoing prompt physical exercises (I) more thanthe desk-based employees sitting for long hours (C), have better health in terms of energyexpenditure (O) in thirteen weeks? (T) (Pedersenet al.,2014).Q1. 3.This is because a sample size of 34 is not representative of the general population.The larger the sample size drawn from the population, the higher the precision. The authors havenot indicated how they arrived at sample size 34 out of a population of 460 desk-based policeemployees in Tasmania in a number of metropolitan regions. Maybe a sample size calculationformula would have been indicated in the article to enable readers to understand the samplecollection process (Malterudet al.,2016). However, the method used for sampling was therandom sampling method which gives each member of the study population an equal probabilityand opportunity to be selected as a sample representing the population (Csikszentmihalyi &Larson, 2014). Random sampling therefore offers a non-biased sampling strategy, although thesampling error can occur making the sample size to fail to be a representation of the generalpopulation under study (Chenet al.,2018). If the sample is not a representation of thepopulation, this might affect the process of drawing conclusions (Gaoet al.,2015). Moreover,since the desk-based police in Tasmania were drawn from different metropolitan sectors, thiscould have problems during survey and hence a sampling bias.Q2; 1.This is because out of the 34 randomly selected participants, they were groupedinto two groups; the control group (n=17), and the intervention group (n=17). Moreover, theselected participants agreed to fill the informed consent form before the study started, anindication that they all committed themselves to take part in the study ((Pedersenet al.,2014).
EPIDEMEOLOGY3The authors also indicate that there was 100% adherence rate and that there was no participantfrom either the control or the intervention group who withdrew from the study.Q3.This section can be rated as moderate. This is because, most of the samplingprocedures were carried out well except for the sample size estimation (Muhibet al.,2016).Moreover, the researchers divided the sample into two; the control and the intervention groups,consisting of equal number of participants. The two groups would make it easy to make acomparison between the desk-based employees engaging in regular physical activities and thosewho do not, thus making meaningful conclusions (Morganet al.,2016).STUDY DESIGNA4. 1.Yes, the study was described as randomized. Yes the method described wasappropriate for this study. The random method was applied in the selection of 34 participantsfrom a total of 460 people. In order to obtain two classes of research process, randomization wasalso used in the assigning of the sample into either an intervention or control group, by use of thereplacement method (Thomaset al.,2015). Additionally, in an effort to monitor the behaviors ofthe study participants, the research team also made random telephone checks to make sure thatthe participants were only engaging in the activities that they had been allocated and not anyother new activities. A randomized control reduces the possibility of treatment allocation biasduring the assigning of various treatments (Faberet al.,2015).RATINGThis section can be rated as strong (1). This is because the researchers used a randomizedcontrol trial research design in order to lower possibility of bias when testing a new treatment.Moreover, from the article, it is clear that randomization practices were applied in all sectionswhere appropriate and this enabled the researchers to make a clear and concise conclusion about
EPIDEMEOLOGY4the research findings by comparing the two treatment groups; the intervention and the controlgroups (Kenneset al.,2015).CONFOUNDERSQ1. 1. While there could be variations among the study participants, the authors did notindicate the differences between them. Such important differences or confounding variablesinclude gender, age, marital status, education and health status, all of which could havesignificant effects to the results of this study (Loet al.,2017). It would be important if theresearchers indicated these confounder variables among the selected samples so as to understandthe extent at which they affect both the dependent as well as the independent variables.Q2.4. This section can be rated as weak (3). This is because, while the findings cansuggest that prolonged sitting on the desk is associated with weight gain, a control group cansupport this statement by making a comparison with the intervention group (von Thiele Schwarzet al.,2016). However, there are confounding variables which could affect the outcomes of thisresearch such as the amount of food taken, gender variation, education status, age and manymore (Jakobsenet al.,2015). There is nothing of this sought which was mentioned at the start ofthe intervention yet they have significant effect on the outcomes. For instance, if the men weremiddle aged, while the women were over above fifty years, then age would be a confoundingvariable which would have a direct effect on the weight gain among these desk-based employees.This is a poor strategy and it could lead to some form of bias.BLINDINGQ1. 2.When these employees selected a physical activity that they chose to engage in, itwas upon them to make a decision on how they were to engage in it (Jakobsenet al.,2014). Themeasurement or assessment of the physical activity was done by the use of a Software which was
You’re reading a preview
Preview Documents

To View Complete Document

Click the button to download
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document