Study Design Resource Document: Randomized Trial Example ✓ Solved

Study Design Resource Documentrandomized Trial Study Examples1

Study Design Resource Document Randomized Trial Study Examples:

1. Monti PM, Barnett NP, Colby, SM, et al. (2007) Motivational interviewing versus feedback only in emergency care for young adult problem drinking.

2. Sinharoy SS, Schmidt WP, Wendt R, et al. (2017) Effect of community health clubs on child diarrhea in western Rwanda: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

3. Tham CK, Collins JSA, Malloy C, Sloan JM, Bamfoard KB, Watson RGP. (1996) Randomized controlled trial of ranitidine versus omeprazole in combination with antibiotics for eradication of Helicobacter pylori.

Cohort Study Examples:

1. Allison M, Garland C, Chlebowski R, et al. (2006) The association between aspirin use and the incidence of colorectal cancer in women.

2. Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, et al. (2002) Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of cardiovascular disease in US adults: the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study.

3. Sesso HD, Buring JE, Rifai N. (2003) C-Reactive protein and the risk of developing hypertension.

Case-Control Study Examples:

1. Carton M, Barul C, Menvielle G, et al. (2017) Occupational exposure to solvents and risk of head and neck cancer in women: a population-based case-control study in France.

2. Davila JA, Morgan RO, Shaib Y, McGlynn KA, El-Serag HB. (2005) Diabetes increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: a population-based case-control study.

3. Cramer DW, Vitonis VF, Terry KL, Welch WR, Titus LJ. (2016) The association between talc use and ovarian cancer: a retrospective case-control study in two US states.

Cross-Sectional Study Examples:

1. Nilsen P, Holmqvist M, Nordqvist C, Bendsten P. (2007) Linking drinking to injury – a causal attribution of injury to alcohol intake among patients in a Swedish emergency room.

2. Johnson JV, Hall EM. (1988) Job strain, workplace social support, and cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population.

3. Elliott AM, Luo N, Tembo, G, et al. (1990) Impact of HIV on tuberculosis in Zambia: a cross-sectional study.

Paper For Above Instructions

The study design is a fundamental aspect of public health research and contributes to our understanding of various health-related phenomena. Within the realm of epidemiological studies, a variety of study designs can be employed, including randomized trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. Each of these approaches has its distinct strengths and weaknesses, which will be explored using specific examples from literature.

Randomized Trials

Randomized trials are often considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of interventions. By randomly assigning participants to receive either the intervention or a control, these studies minimize bias and ensure that differences in outcomes can be attributed to the intervention itself. For example, Monti et al. (2007) conducted a study comparing motivational interviewing to feedback-only interventions in emergency care for young adults with problem drinking. They found that motivational interviewing was significantly more effective in reducing alcohol consumption than feedback alone, highlighting the importance of tailored interventions in emergency settings.

Another example is the study by Sinharoy et al. (2017), which evaluated the effect of community health clubs on child diarrhea in western Rwanda. This cluster-randomized controlled trial demonstrated that community-based interventions could effectively reduce the incidence of diarrhea in children, emphasizing the potential role of local educational programs in promoting public health.

Cohort Studies

Cohort studies observe a group of individuals over time to assess the impact of specific exposures on outcomes. Allison et al. (2006) examined the association between aspirin use and the incidence of colorectal cancer in women. Their findings suggested that regular aspirin use was correlated with a reduced risk of developing colorectal cancer, thus contributing to the ongoing discussion about aspirin's role in cancer prevention.

Bazzano et al. (2002) explored the relationship between fruit and vegetable intake and cardiovascular disease risk in U.S. adults using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. This cohort study reinforced the recommendation for increased consumption of fruits and vegetables as a protective measure against cardiovascular conditions.

Case-Control Studies

Case-control studies begin by identifying individuals with a specific outcome (cases) and comparing them to individuals without that outcome (controls). Carton et al. (2017) investigated occupational exposure to solvents and the associated risk of head and neck cancer in women through a population-based case-control study in France. Their findings indicated significant associations, contributing to occupational health policies.

Davila et al. (2005) also conducted a case-control study that found diabetes significantly increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in the U.S. This important finding highlights the need for targeted screening and preventive strategies for diabetic patients.

Cross-Sectional Studies

Cross-sectional studies provide a snapshot of a population at a single point in time and are efficient for assessing the prevalence of an outcome or behavior. Nilsen et al. (2007) linked drinking to injury in a Swedish emergency room, demonstrating that alcohol intake had causal attributions relating to injury severity. Such findings are invaluable for public health campaigns aimed at reducing alcohol-related injuries.

Johnson and Hall (1988) conducted a cross-sectional study on job strain and workplace social support, discovering significant links to cardiovascular disease. Their research underscores the importance of workplace environments on employee health and well-being.

Conclusion

In conclusion, understanding the various study designs and their respective applications is crucial for evaluating health interventions and outcomes. Each study type, whether randomized, cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional, provides unique insights that can inform public health policies and practices. By critically examining these examples from the literature, we can better appreciate the complexities of health research and the importance of robust study designs.

References

  • Monti PM, Barnett NP, Colby SM, et al. (2007). Motivational interviewing versus feedback only in emergency care for young adult problem drinking.
  • Sinharoy SS, Schmidt WP, Wendt R, et al. (2017). Effect of community health clubs on child diarrhea in western Rwanda: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.
  • Tham CK, Collins JSA, Malloy C, Sloan JM, Bamfoard KB, Watson RGP. (1996). Randomized controlled trial of ranitidine versus omeprazole in combination with antibiotics for eradication of Helicobacter pylori.
  • Allison M, Garland C, Chlebowski R, et al. (2006). The association between aspirin use and the incidence of colorectal cancer in women.
  • Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG, et al. (2002). Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of cardiovascular disease in US adults: the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-up Study.
  • Sesso HD, Buring JE, Rifai N. (2003). C-Reactive protein and the risk of developing hypertension.
  • Carton M, Barul C, Menvielle G, et al. (2017). Occupational exposure to solvents and risk of head and neck cancer in women: a population-based case-control study in France.
  • Davila JA, Morgan RO, Shaib Y, McGlynn KA, El-Serag HB. (2005). Diabetes increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: a population-based case-control study.
  • Cramer DW, Vitonis VF, Terry KL, Welch WR, Titus LJ. (2016). The association between talc use and ovarian cancer: a retrospective case-control study in two US states.
  • Nilsen P, Holmqvist M, Nordqvist C, Bendsten P. (2007). Linking drinking to injury – a causal attribution of injury to alcohol intake among patients in a Swedish emergency room.
  • Johnson JV, Hall EM. (1988). Job strain, work place social support, and cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population.
  • Elliott AM, Luo N, Tembo G, et al. (1990). Impact of HIV on tuberculosis in Zambia: a cross-sectional study.

Related Assignments