Posted: April 28th, 2015

EPHPP

OPTION 1: Individual submission(begin with this template and submit a draft)

Structured 3,500 word essay maximum excluding the 1,129 words of these questions and your list of references. Expand the explanation boxes as required.

You must use this worksheet to complete the assessment and submit it through Turnitin.

Pair number    
Name and student number    
Second reviewer, name and student number    
Date draft submitted through TurnitIn.   Word count (not including the 1,129 for the form and the references):
Date of exchange individual work and discussion with partner    

Study assessed: New Moves – Preventing weight-related problems in adolescent girlsNequmark-Sztainer 2010

QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR QUANTITATIVE STUDIES

Please complete these the questions presented as structured paragraphs as you would in an essay. Highlight your selection or cross-out the choice not applicable.Demonstrate your knowledge of epidemiological principles within each section and support your statements.

Show the structured PICO question of the study

 

COMPONENT RATINGS

  1. 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
  • Not likely
  1. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:

 

 

(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
Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

 

RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3

 

Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

  1. 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
  • Other, please specify:
  1. 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

Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3

 

Provide your explanation:

 

 

  1. C) CONFOUNDERS

(Q1) Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention?

  • Yes
  1. No
  2. 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
Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

(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
RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3

 

Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

  1. 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
Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

(Q2) Were the study participants aware of the research question?

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3

 

 

Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

  1. E) DATA COLLECTION METHODS

(Q1) Were data collection tools shown to be valid?

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

(Q2) Were data collection tools shown to be reliable?

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3

 

Provide your explanation:

 

 

  1. 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)

 

 

 

RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK  
See dictionary 1 2 3 Not Applicable

 

Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

 

  1. 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
Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

(Q2) Was the consistency of the intervention measured?

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

(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
Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

  1. H) ANALYSES

(Q1) Indicate the unit of allocation (circle one)

community organization/institution practice/office individual

(Q2) Indicate the unit of analysis (circle one)

community organization/institution practice/office individual

Provide your explanation to Q1 & Q2:

 

 

 

(Q3) Are the statistical methods appropriate for the study design?

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

(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
Provide your explanation:

 

 

GLOBAL RATING

COMPONENT RATINGS

Please transcribe the information from the gray boxes on pages 1-4 onto this page. See dictionary on how to rate this section.

 

A SELECTION BIAS STRONG MODERATE WEAK  
    1 2 3  
B STUDY DESIGN STRONG MODERATE WEAK  
    1 2 3  
C CONFOUNDERS STRONG MODERATE WEAK  
    1 2 3  
D BLINDING STRONG MODERATE WEAK  
    1 2 3  
E DATA COLLECTION METHOD STRONG MODERATE WEAK  
    1 2 3  
F WITHDRAWALS AND DROPOUTS STRONG MODERATE WEAK  
    1 2 3 Not Applicable

 

GLOBAL RATING FOR THIS PAPER (circle one):

1 STRONG (no WEAK ratings)

2 MODERATE (one WEAK rating)

3 WEAK (two or more WEAK ratings)

Discuss now your report with your partner working through each item and the epidemiological principles.

 

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 outcomeof the discussion (you may describe what you learned during the process):

 

If you were unable to complete the above comparison, please describe the reason and state the risk of failing to undertake a comparative assessment after initial independent assessment.

 

 

Final decision of both reviewers (circle one):

1 STRONG

2 MODERATE

3 WEAK

 

Provide your explanation:

 

 

Results:

How large was the effect of the intervention? (consider the outcomes measured, whether the primary outcome is clearly specified, and the key results for each outcome)

 

Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

 

Your overall conclusions about this study:

Considering both the trustworthiness and outcomes of the study, make a brief overall conclusion.

Provide your explanation:

 

 

 

 

References: (may be in addition to the 3,500 word limit

 

 

 

This worksheet is based upon the EPHPP “Qualitative Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies” and with permission was modified for teaching purposes.

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00
Live Chat+1-631-333-0101EmailWhatsApp