Evidence Informed Health Practice 130

Assessment 3 – Critical appraisal                                          

Answer Template

Total MARKS /50

Please note: Agreeing to everything is not ‘critical thought’ and neither is disagreeing or objecting to everything. We would like to see the evidence of balanced critical thinking.

INSTRUCTIONS ON COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE:

This template has been provided to you as a blank template with the allocated marks for each question. Please DO NOT delete the mark allocation. If we have provided you with a word limit, please do not exceed the word limit.

• Please save your document as: Surname_ID_Assessment3
  • Example: Atee_224034J_Assessment3
• Please submit your document as: Surname_ID_Assessment3
  • Example: Atee_224034J_Assessment3
• Before submitting this template, please DELETE these red instructions and simply submit the document as question and answers (all black writing and pink mark allocation should remain).
• Carefully read each question and provide the answer requested for that question.

Q1. Briefly describe what the purpose of this study was? (1 mark)

Q2. Did the authors adequately justify the need for this study? Justify your answer. (2 mark)

Q3. What would be a suitable null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis for this study? (2 marks)

Q4. What is the level of evidence for ‘The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children’ (1 mark)

Q5. Do you think the study design is suitable? Justify your answer. (2 marks)

Q6. Describe one alternative study design that could have been used for this study? And describe how would you go about it? (2 marks)

Q7. Authors have described the sampling as two-stage stratified, clustered design. Briefly describe what this means (1 marks). Is this a type of non-probability sample? Yes/no, why? (2 mark)

Q8. The authors have reported ‘For the infant cohort, 8,921 families were sent a letter of invitation for participation in the study by Health Insurance Commission’ and response rate was 57.2% (including non-contacts). From this information, please calculate the number of families who responded to achieve this response rate? (1 mark)

Q9. What is the operational definition of ‘Hospitalisation’? (1 mark)

Q10. Correctly identify the following variables as nominal, ordinal and ratio/interval by placing a tick mark (✓) in the table provided below. (5 marks, 0.5 each)

Q11. Based on following data from Table 1 please provide brief description and interpretation of the odds ratios, confidence intervals and whether or not the results are statistically significant and why (10 marks)

Hospital outpatient clinic – Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.82 (1.16, 2.85)

Hospital outpatient clinic – Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.82 (1.16, 2.85)

Hospital emergency ward – Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 1.19 (0.85, 1.66)

Maternal and child health nurse visits – Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.45 (0.32, 0.63)

Other specialist – Odds Ratio (95% CI) = 0.64 (0.33, 1.22)

Q12. In Table 1 under the column of Crude Odds Ratio (95%CI) recalculate and show how the authors have calculated the odds ratio for ‘General Practitioner’ as 0.45. Draw and label a 2×2 table first (1 mark) and show your calculations (1 mark). Provide correct and complete interpretation of OR and its significance based on p value and 95%CI provided in the table. (2 mark)

Q13. Authors have reported no difference in the average age of non-indigenous and indigenous infants, why? Please explain and justify briefly. (1 mark)

Q14. In Table 3, for ‘Remoteness classification’ which group is used as reference or comparison group? How do you know this? (1 mark)

Q15. What are two potential biases/limitations of this particular study and how would these influence the results? Your answer should be in particular reference to this paper Please do not include the limitations that authors have already mentioned in the paper. (2 marks)

Q16. What are the two advantages/strengths of this study? Your answer should be in particular reference to this paper. Please do not include the strengths or advantages that authors have already mentioned in the paper. (2 marks)

Q17. Do you think the researchers measured the use of different health care services accurately? Yes/No and Why? What else they could have done to improve the quality of data? (3 marks)

Q18. The researchers used a five point Likert scale of global overall health rating to measure the health status of the infants. Do you think this was appropriate? Why do you think so? (2 marks)

Q19. Using ‘Indigenous status’ as independent variable and ‘Health services utilisation’ as dependent variable:

What could be a possible Type I statistical error. (1 mark)

What could be a possible Type II statistical error. (1 mark)

Q20. Summarise the main findings of the study? Do you think that the findings of the study are valid? Would you trust these results? Support your argument with justification in less than 300 words. (3 marks)

 Additional Files:

The-comparison-of-health-status-and-health.pdf

assessment_3_important_info.docx