Effective Public Health Practice Project Assignment -
Article - Neumark-Sztainer, D. R., Friend, S. E., Flattum, C. F., Hannan, P. J., Story, M. T., Bauer, K. W., ... & Petrich, C. A. (2010). New moves-preventing weight-related problems in adolescent girls: a group-randomized study. American journal of preventive medicine, 39(5), 421-432.
Please complete these the questions presented as structured paragraphs as you would in an essay.
Part 1 -
Show the structured PICO question of the study
COMPONENT RATINGS
A) SELECTION BIAS
(Q1) Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target population?
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely
3. Not likely
4. Can't tell
(Q2) What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate?
1. 80 - 100% agreement
2. 60 - 79% agreement
3. less than 60% agreement
4. Not applicable
5. Can't tell
B) STUDY DESIGN
Indicate the study design
1. Randomized controlled trial
2. Controlled clinical trial
3. Cohort analytic (two group pre + post)
4. Case-control
5. Cohort (one group pre + post (before and after))
6. Interrupted time series
7. Other, please specify:
8. Can't tell
Was the study described as randomized? If NO, go to Component C.
No Yes
If Yes, was the method of randomization described? (See dictionary)
No Yes
If Yes, was the method appropriate? (See dictionary)
No Yes
C) CONFOUNDERS
(Q1) Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
The following are examples of confounders:
1. Race
2. Sex
3. Marital status/family
4. Age
5. SES (income or class)
6. Education
7. Health status
8. Pre-intervention score on outcome measure
(Q2) If yes, indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled (either in the design (e.g. stratification, matching) or analysis)?
1. 80 - 100% (most)
2. 60 - 79% (some)
3. Less than 60% (few or none)
4. Can't Tell
D) BLINDING
(Q1) Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of participants?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
(Q2) Were the study participants aware of the research question?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
E) DATA COLLECTION METHODS
(Q1) Were data collection tools shown to be valid?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
(Q2) Were data collection tools shown to be reliable?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
F) WITHDRAWALS AND DROP-OUTS
(Q1) Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
4. Not Applicable (i.e. one time surveys or interviews)
(Q2) Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study. (If the percentage differs by groups, record the lowest).
1. 80 -100%
2. 60 - 79%
3. less than 60%
4. Can't tell
5. Not Applicable (i.e. Retrospective case-control)
G) INTERVENTION INTEGRITY
(Q1) What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest?
1. 80 -100%
2. 60 - 79%
3. less than 60%
4. Can't tell
(Q2) Was the consistency of the intervention measured?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
(Q3) Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
H) ANALYSES
(Q1) Indicate the unit of allocation (circle one)
community / a group of people / individual or patient
(Q2) Indicate the unit of analysis (circle one)
community / a group of people / individual or patient
(Q3) Are the statistical methods appropriate for the study design? [Please attempt to answer this question within your current knowledge of statistics. You may wish to state the limitations of your knowledge]
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
(Q4) Is the analysis performed by intervention allocation status (i.e. intention to treat) rather than the actual intervention received?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
Part 2 -
Discuss now your report with your partner working through each item and the epidemiological principles. Complete the remainder of these questions. You may change your initial responses from the independent draft that was submitted prior to discussion.
With both reviewers discussing the ratings:
Is there a discrepancy between the two reviewers with respect to the component (A-F) ratings?
No Yes
If yes, indicate the reason for the discrepancy
1. Oversight
2. Differences in interpretation of criteria
3. Differences in interpretation of study
Describe what happened when you exchanged your drafts and the describe outcome of the discussion (you may describe what you learned during the process):
Final decision of both reviewers (circle one):
1. STRONG
2. MODERATE
3. WEAK
Results:
How large was the effect of the intervention? Is the effect clinically meaningful? (consider the outcomes measured, whether the primary outcome is clearly specified, and the key results for each outcome).
Attachment:- Assignment Files.rar