Assessment 2 HLN710 Epidemiology
Assessment 2 HLN710 Epidemiology
Analytical Report
Personalised template
Begin with this template and use it to submit your draft and then final submission.
Structured report 3,500 words maximum, excluding the words of these questions and your list of references. Expand the explanation boxes as required. This template contains approximately 2,239 words.
Due dates:
Substantial individual draft: 2 Oct 2023 by 23:59 (Week 10) Part 1
Final submission: 16 Oct 2023 by 23:59 completed.
You must use this template to complete the assessment and submit it through Turnitin on the HLN710 Canvas Page. The boxes are expandable.
Use the Guide for interpreting the risk of bias and making determinations - Assessment 2
Pair number (as you choose on Blackboard) Submission option (individual or joint submission)
For joint submission, only one student needs to submit on behalf of the pair [_] Individual A discussion with your partner is still required.
[__] Joint optional. Both students receive the same grade.
Name and student number Onkar Singh 11675985
Your peer, their name
It is compulsory to exchange drafts and have a discussion with another student The date your pre-exchanged draft was submitted through Turnitin Dates of exchanging individual work and discussion with your partner Word count of the final submission (excluding the words for the form and references)
3,500 word limit for individual (aim for about 3,000 words)
4,000 word limit for joint submission
Marking stops when this limit is reached. There is no +10% If this is a joint submission, only one partner should submit on behalf of the pair.
You are assessing the study described in:
mHealth smoking cessation intervention among high school students: 3-month primary outcome findings from a randomized controlled trial
Mssener U, Linderoth C, Thomas K, Bendtsen M (2020) mHealth smoking cessation intervention among high school students: 3-month primary outcome findings from a randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE 15(3): e0229411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229411
Trial registration: ISRCTN15396225
Access through:
View PDF: https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2016/09000/A_Cluster_Randomized_Controlled_Trial_to_Reduce.19.aspxhttps://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/_layouts/15/oaks.journals/downloadpdf.aspx?trckng_src_pg=ArticleViewer&an=00005768-201609000-00019Trial registration number:
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: the ACTRN12611000742976. Date registered
15/07/2011
https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=336655&isReview=trueAssess all information relevant to the participants in the primary publication:
There may be more than one publication that described this study. You will need to search for additional information about this study that is available and can help inform your answers. The additional information can include publications describing the study design, participants experiences, conference papers and other information on the researchers project website. Incorporate the information you have obtained from other sources into the responses. Please be aware that sometimes the information may conflict. Place your answers inside the boxes which expand. Do not prepare a separate essay.
Risk of Bias Assessment for a quantitative study of an intervention
Part 1:
Tip: Write mostly in paragraphs. Begin each selection by providing the definition (perhaps from the Cochrane handbook). For example, describe Selection Bias. Then explain why avoiding bias is important. Try to explain what the authors did in their study (describe it). Interpret their actions within the definition of bias and the implications. Explain what happens when the bias is present. Describe your assessment of the confidence/certainty in the results presented. Describe the impact of selection bias avoidance. Finally, make supported conclusions. Students commonly write a paragraph about selection bias.
Expand the response boxes as required.
Part 1
About the study:
Show the structured PICO question and timeframe (T) for the outcome measures for the study.
Study design
What best describes the study design?
Randomised trial
Individually randomised parallel-group trial
Cluster randomised parallel-group trial
Individually randomised crossed-over
Non-randomised trial (an experimental study in which people are allocated to different interventions that are not random).
Controlled before-after-study (has a comparison, but the data are not contemporaneous in study and control groups)
Interrupted time series and repeated measures effects
Something else, describe..
Explain what the researchers did, how it meets the definition, and whether the method is appropriate to address the research questions.
Part 2
Risk of Bias arising from the selection and recruitment of the participants
(Q1) Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to represent the target population?
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Not likely
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. No information
Provide your explanation:
RATE THIS SECTION
Risk of bias from selecting participants STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concernsWEAK
High risk
1 2 3
Provide your explanation:
B. Risks of bias arising from the randomisation and allocation processes(Q1) Was the allocation sequence random?
Yes
Probably Yes
Probably No
No
No information
(Q2) Was the allocation sequence concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to
interventions?
Yes
Probably Yes
Probably No
No
No information
Provide your explanation for Q1 and Q2 of the methods of participant assignments undertaken by the researchers and any bias might be introduced.
(Q3) Were there important differences between the groups prior to the intervention (confounders)?
These can include baseline differences in the outcomes
Yes
Probably Yes
Probably No
No
Little or no information about confounders
(Q4) Possible confounders
The following are examples of confounders: (tip: mark the ones present in the study and add others which YOU have identified)
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 the outcome measure
9. Other
Provide your explanation for risk of each possible confounder above:
RATE THIS SECTION
Risk of bias from the randomisation and allocation process STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk
1 2 3
Provide your explanation for risk of bias from the randomisation and allocation process:
C) Risk of bias from the integrity of the intervention, including adhering to the intervention
Risk of bias from Delivery
(Q1) What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest?
80 -100%
60 - 79%
less than 60%
Cant tell
Provide your explanation:
(Q2) Was the consistency of the intervention measured and found acceptable?
Yes measured intervention consistent (low risk)
Not measured (uncertain risk)
Yes measured intervention inconsistent
No information
Provide your explanation:
(Q3) Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-intervention) that may influence the results?
Yes
Probably Yes
Probably No
No
No information
Provide your explanation:
RATE THIS SECTION
Risk of bias from the integrity of the intervention STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk
1 2 3
D) Risk of bias due to missing outcome data (attrition)
(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. Cant tell
5. Not Applicable
RATE THIS SECTION
Risk of bias due to missing outcome data STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk
1 2 3
Provide your explanation:
E) Risk of bias in the measurement of the outcome (measurement bias)
(Q1) Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of participants?
Yes
Probably Yes
Probably No
No
No information
Provide your explanation:
(Q2a ) Were the study participants aware of the research question/ study allocation?
Yes
Probably Yes
Probably No use this answer for scoring
No use this answer for scoring
No information use this answer for scoring
(Q2b) If the study participants were aware of the research question (Yes, Probably Yes), was it likely to affect the measurement of the outcomes? Use these answers for scoring
Yes
Probably Yes
Probably No
No
Cant tell
Provide your explanation for Q2a and Q2b:
(Q3) Were data collection tools shown to be valid?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell / No information
Provide your explanation:
(Q4) Were data collection tools shown to be reliable? 1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell / No information
Provide your explanation:
Ensure that you have listed the important outcome measures. These should align with the studies' Primary Outcomes'. You can provide the above as a table assessing the validity and reliability of the important outcomes.
RATE THIS SECTION
Risk of bias in the measurement of the outcome STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk
1 2 3
Provide your explanation:
F) Risk of bias in the analysis and reporting of the result
Risks in the analysis (Analysis bias)
Refer back to Part 2 (b)
(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
Provide your explanation to Q1 & Q2: (Tip: Identify the specific statements in the paper that identify the unit of allocation in your answer.)
(Q3) Is the analysis performed by intervention allocation status (i.e. intention to treat) rather than the actual intervention received? Look for matching colours in Q1 & Q2
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can't tell
Provide your explanation:
(Q4) Do the results in the report follow the analysis plan and match the research questions?
Yes
Probably Yes
Probably No
No
No information
RATE THIS SECTION
Risk of bias in the analysis and reporting of the result STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk
1 2 3
Provide your explanation:
Summarise your risk of bias assessment for each item
A Selection and recruitment STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk 1 2 3 B Randomisation and allocation processes STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk 1 2 3 C Integrity and adherence STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk 1 2 3 D Missing outcome data and attrition STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk 1 2 3 E Measurement STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk 1 2 3 F Analysis and reporting STRONG
Low risk MODERATE
Some concerns WEAK
High risk 1 2 3 Not Applicable
.On985
Part 3:
Discuss your report with your partner working through each item and the epidemiological principles. Then, complete the remainder of these questions. You may change your initial responses from the independent draft.
With both reviewers discussing the ratings:
Is there a discrepancy between the two reviewers concerning 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
Briefly describe what happened when you exchanged your drafts.
What was achieved from your discussion (you may describe what you learned during the process and why this is a required step when conducting a systematic review)
(Tip: Try to provide specific examples rather than just stating we had a good conversation.)
If you could not complete the above comparison, please describe the reason and state the risk of failing to undertake a comparative assessment after the initial independent assessment.
The final decision of both reviewers of the study (circle one):
1 STRONG Low risk of bias
2 MODERATE Concerns
3 WEAK High risk of bias
Use the guide provided to make your determination.
Provide your explanation:
Results:
Your overall conclusions about this study:
Considering both the study's trustworthiness and the findings, make a brief overall conclusion and describe what you think the implications would be in practice. Finally, explain whether you believe this study supports recommendations for policy and practice?
Provide your explanation:
References: (Additional to the word limit)
Working together (For optional joint submission):
Describe the contribution each of you made to this joint submission that represents an equal contribution:
Complete this checklist for final submission (Compulsory individual and joint)
|_|This is your original work.
|_| Pair number and partners are stated
|_| Word count is displayed on the first page and does not exceed the maximum.
|_| Draft copy (word document) was uploaded to Turnitin no later than the due draft date (failure to upload will result in a grade of zero)
|_| Exchange of drafts and discussion has occurred with the persons stated as the partners.
|_|The discussion and exchange with the partner occurred after each partner prepared a substantial independent undertaking of the assignment.
|_| Appropriate citation and referencing have been used.
|_| Submission (MS Word document), uploaded through Turnitin by the due date.
|_|This personalised template has not been provided to anyone other than the discussion partner.
|_| The blank template file will be deleted from my computer after submission.
Declaration of editorial assistance (Compulsory)
Did this report have the benefit of professional editorial advice of any form? |_| Yes |_| No
If yes, is the editor's name and a brief description of the service rendered listed as part of the acknowledgements or other prefatory matters in the submitted essay? |_| Yes |_| No
Was the intent to use an editorial service declared in advance? |_| Yes (required) |_| No
Submissions with uncompleted checklists or altered templates will not be accepted.
Prepared by Prof Philip Baker p2.baker@qut.edu.auUpdated: 11 July 2023
.On985
