1. What is the objective of the study? Discuss the importance of the study.The objective of the study of Wistar et al.
(2007) was to investigate the effectiveness of an assessment tool, namely the Simon Fraser Heart Health Report Card System, in determining the risk level for cardiovascular disorders. This tool, which was earlier designed by cardiovascular researchers, identifies targets that could increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases (Wilson et al., 1998; Grundy et al., 1999). The results of this assessment are then further disseminated to both physician and study participant, which in turn could guide the physician to conduct preventive action as well as counseling of the patient.
This study is important in designing an effective method for prevention of cardiovascular disease.2. What research design was employed for this study? Discuss the research characteristics of the study that classify it as a particular research design.The research design employed for this study involved a randomized controlled trial that allowed study participants to complete a health report form enumerating lifestyle risks associated with cardiovascular diseases. The completed health report cards were collected and analyzed based on the responses of the study participants.
A risk scoring method was then applied to the collected responses, group the participants based on their answers. An intervention group, as well as a control group was then created and these participants were checked one year later, to determine which individuals developed cardiovascular disorders.3. Discuss the inclusion and exclusion criteria utilized for the sample population of the study.The criteria for inclusion to the study were that of an age between 45 to 64 years, established residence in the covered region of Fraser Health, as well as the identified risk profile for cardiovascular disorder.
The primary prevention group created within the study profile required that the participant show at least 10% score in the Framingham assay, which evaluates an individual’s risk in developing cardiovascular disease. A secondary prevention group was composed of participants who were diagnosed with coronary heart disease.4. Summarize and discuss the results tabulated in Tables 1 and 3.Table 1 shows the results of the comparison between the primary and secondary prevention groups based on different parameters such as cholesterol and glucose levels, frequency of exercise, nutrition and health confidence.
The table showed that there was not much difference between the scores for the primary prevention group and the control. However, the global risk score was lower when compared to that of the control group. Table 3 shows the results of the comparison between the two prevention groups one year after the start of the research study. This table shows that any changes observed in the outcome measures of the participants were not statistically significant.5.
Discuss the conclusion of the study with emphasis on the strengths and weaknesses of the study.The study concluded that there was a reduction in the risk of developing cardiovascular disease among participants in the primary prevention group, as shown by the cholesterol and blood pressure measurements. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of the scoring scheme could not be determined with the secondary prevention group. The study was also unable to determine whether the decrease in risk was mainly due to the improvement in treatment or due to a significant lifestyle change on the part of the participant.
6. Was this a double-blinded randomized controlled trial? Explain your response with evidence from the paper.No, this study was not a double-blinded randomized controlled trial because the proponents of the study had knowledge of what they were providing to the participants. In addition, the participants also knew that actual grouping and treatment that they were receiving. A double-blinded study involves both proponents and participants having no knowledge of the specific treatment they are receiving.
