Showing 325–333 of 769 results

  • Randomized Controlled Zinc Supplementation and HIV

    $20.00

    Students are to critically appraise  their selected article according to the following headings and sub-headings. Please note that the sections in italics are guidelines only and are not intended to be answered in a question answer format.

    TITLE PAGE (including name, student no, subject, class, lecturer, word count)

    INTRODUCTION (3 marks)

    Need to introduce your paper here with proper referencing (ie author and title). For Example: In this paper the article entitled “The therapeutic use of Drug X” by Smith et al., 2012 will be critically appraised. This article investigates…..

    Also need to discuss why you are conducting this assignment

    EVALUATION OF THE INTRODUCTION SECTION (6 marks)

    2.1 Literature review (3 marks) Consider:
    – Whether the author(s) literature search was adequate in terms of number, quality and relevance of references. 2.2 Aims or hypotheses (3 marks)

    Consider:

    • –  What was the question asked?
    • –  Was the question clearly stated?
    • –  Was the question focused in terms of the population, intervention and outcome?

    EVALUATION OF THE METHODS SECTION (20 marks)

    3.1 Subjects (5 marks) Consider:

    • –  Who were the participants?
    • –  If the participants were representative of the population under study.
    • –  How the participants were selected for inclusion in the study.
    • –  If the sample was adequately described.
    • –  If the sample size was appropriate and adequately representative of the target population.
    • –  If the sampling mode was appropriate.
    • –  If bias was evident in the selection of the participants.
    • –  If participant consent was obtained.

    3.2 Apparatus/instrumentation (2marks) Consider:

    ©Think: Colleges Pty Ltd Assessment-Page: 7

    • –  What type of instrumentation was used?
    • –  If the validity and reliability of the instrumentation was established. 3.3 Control group/s (3marks) Consider:
      • –  If there was a control group.
      • –  If the use/non use of a control group was consistent with the study strategy

    employed.

    • –  If the control was a placebo or alternative/normal treatment.
    • –  Was the control “treatment” adequately described?
    • –  If no control, why?
    • –  If there were ethical issues in using a control group.

    3.4 Subject assignment (3 marks) Consider:

    • –  How the participants were allocated to the treatment groups.
    • –  If the allocation was random.
    • –  Whether the method of allocation was adequately described.
    • –  If there were any differences between the groups at entry to the study reported.
    • –  If any differences reported might explain any outcome/s (confounding)

    3.5 Treatment parameters (3 marks) Consider:

    • –  If all treatments given were adequately described.
    • –  If the settings were adequately described.
    • –  If qualifications and/or training of administering personnel indicated.

    3.6 Rosenthal & Hawthorn effects? (4 marks) Consider:

    • –  What are these effects?
    • –  If the authors addressed these effects, and if so, how?
    1. EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS SECTION (Total 15 marks)

    4.1 Tables and graphs (5 marks) Consider:

    • –  If tables clearly identified.
    • –  If table headings were adequately described and any abbreviations clearly noted.
    • –  If the axis of graph were clearly identified.
    • –  If correlation used, was the data and/or correlation graph presented?

    4.2 Selection of statistics (5 marks) Consider:

    • –  If any assumptions were made about the population distribution, ie normal/non-normal.
    • –  If statistics used, which category, ie descriptive/inferential?
    • –  If statistics consistent with population distribution.
    • –  If an effect size was discussed.
    • –  If “numbers needed to treat” calculation done.
    • –  If confidence interval quoted. What is its significance?

    4.3 Interpretation of the findings (5 marks) Consider:

    • –  What were the study outcomes?
    • –  Were the authors findings supported by the results?
    • –  Did the authors make any inappropriate generalisations?

    ©Think: Colleges Pty Ltd Assessment-Page: 8

    • –  If clinical significance was discussed.
    • –  If the clinical significance would outweigh any statistical significance.
    1. CONCLUSION (6 marks)

    5.1 Internal validity (2 marks)
    – Overall appraisal of the internal validity the study. (Consider in the context of the criteria for internal validity) 5.2 External validity (2 marks)

    – Overall appraisal of the external validity of the study. (Consider in the context of the criteria for external validity)

    5.3 Overall Quality (2 marks)
    – Briefly discuss the overall quality of the article with reference to its strengths and weaknesses as outlined in the above sections.

    1. REFERENCES & Academic Writing (5 marks)

    Refer to Think Academic and Referencing Guidelines.

    **APPENDIX Include a clean copy of your selected paper here

    Students are to critically appraise (in an essay format) their selected article according to the following headings and sub-headings. Please note that the sections in italics are guidelines only and are not intended to be answered in a question answer format.

    TITLE PAGE (including name, student no, subject, class, lecturer, word count)

    INTRODUCTION (3 marks)

    Need to introduce your paper here with proper referencing (ie author and title). For Example: In this paper the article entitled “The therapeutic use of Drug X” by Smith et al., 2012 will be critically appraised. This article investigates…..

    Also need to discuss why you are conducting this assignment

    EVALUATION OF THE INTRODUCTION SECTION (6 marks)

    2.1 Literature review (3 marks) Consider:
    – Whether the author(s) literature search was adequate in terms of number, quality and relevance of references. 2.2 Aims or hypotheses (3 marks)

    Consider:

    • –  What was the question asked?
    • –  Was the question clearly stated?
    • –  Was the question focused in terms of the population, intervention and outcome?

    EVALUATION OF THE METHODS SECTION (20 marks)

    3.1 Subjects (5 marks) Consider:

    • –  Who were the participants?
    • –  If the participants were representative of the population under study.
    • –  How the participants were selected for inclusion in the study.
    • –  If the sample was adequately described.
    • –  If the sample size was appropriate and adequately representative of the

    target population.

    • –  If the sampling mode was appropriate.
    • –  If bias was evident in the selection of the participants.
    • –  If participant consent was obtained.

    3.2 Apparatus/instrumentation (2marks) Consider:

    ©Think: Colleges Pty Ltd Assessment-Page: 7

    • –  What type of instrumentation was used?
    • –  If the validity and reliability of the instrumentation was established. 3.3 Control group/s (3marks) Consider:
      • –  If there was a control group.
      • –  If the use/non use of a control group was consistent with the study strategy

    employed.

    • –  If the control was a placebo or alternative/normal treatment.
    • –  Was the control “treatment” adequately described?
    • –  If no control, why?
    • –  If there were ethical issues in using a control group.

    3.4 Subject assignment (3 marks) Consider:

    • –  How the participants were allocated to the treatment groups.
    • –  If the allocation was random.
    • –  Whether the method of allocation was adequately described.
    • –  If there were any differences between the groups at entry to the study

    reported.

    • –  If any differences reported might explain any outcome/s (confounding)

    3.5 Treatment parameters (3 marks) Consider:

    • –  If all treatments given were adequately described.
    • –  If the settings were adequately described.
    • –  If qualifications and/or training of administering personnel indicated.

    3.6 Rosenthal & Hawthorn effects? (4 marks) Consider:

    • –  What are these effects?
    • –  If the authors addressed these effects, and if so, how?
    1. EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS SECTION (Total 15 marks)

    4.1 Tables and graphs (5 marks) Consider:

    • –  If tables clearly identified.
    • –  If table headings were adequately described and any abbreviations clearly

    noted.

    • –  If the axis of graph were clearly identified.
    • –  If correlation used, was the data and/or correlation graph presented?

    4.2 Selection of statistics (5 marks) Consider:

    • –  If any assumptions were made about the population distribution, ie

    normal/non-normal.

    • –  If statistics used, which category, ie descriptive/inferential?
    • –  If statistics consistent with population distribution.
    • –  If an effect size was discussed.
    • –  If “numbers needed to treat” calculation done.
    • –  If confidence interval quoted. What is its significance?

    4.3 Interpretation of the findings (5 marks) Consider:

    • –  What were the study outcomes?
    • –  Were the authors findings supported by the results?
    • –  Did the authors make any inappropriate generalisations?

    ©Think: Colleges Pty Ltd Assessment-Page: 8

    • –  If clinical significance was discussed.
    • –  If the clinical significance would outweigh any statistical significance.
    1. CONCLUSION (6 marks)

    5.1 Internal validity (2 marks)
    – Overall appraisal of the internal validity the study. (Consider in the context of the criteria for internal validity) 5.2 External validity (2 marks)

    – Overall appraisal of the external validity of the study. (Consider in the context of the criteria for external validity)

    5.3 Overall Quality (2 marks)
    – Briefly discuss the overall quality of the article with reference to its strengths and weaknesses as outlined in the above sections.

    1. REFERENCES & Academic Writing (5 marks)

    Refer to Think Academic and Referencing Guidelines.

    **APPENDIX Include a clean copy of your selected paper here

    Additional Files:

    Randomized-Controlled-Clinical-Trial-of-Zinc.pdf

    Download File

  • Give an example of a meaningful use of Electronic Health Record

    $5.00

    Q1: Give an example of a meaningful use of Electronic Health Record. How can physicians and patients benefits from the electronic convergence of data?

    Q2. Consider what you know about the typical daily schedule of a busy clinician. What are the advantages of wireless devices, connected to the Internet, as tools for such clinicians? Can you think of disadvantages as well? Be sure to consider the safety and protection of information as well as workflow and clinical needs.

    Q3: What is the life-cycle of an analytics or data mining project?

    Q4. Why is data understanding important? Discuss some ways of doing data understanding.

    Q5. You check your pulse and discover that your heart rate is 100 beats per minute. Is this rate normal or abnormal? What additional information would you use in making the judgment? How does the context in which data are collected influence the interpretation?

    Download File

  • Schizophrenia Paper

    $25.00

    Choose a disorder Schizophrenia, Anorexia, Somatoform, ODD, ADHD
    Write a 1,200- to 1,500-word paper on the chosen disorder, describing the following:

    • The behaviors associated with the disorder
    • The range of impairment for this disorder
    • The implications of this disorder on society
    • Possible treatment options for the disorder
    • Include a minimum of 4 peer-reviewed sources.
    • Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
    Download File

  • Differences between Muscle Mass in men and women

    $5.00

    Differences between Muscle Mass in men and women

    write a one page essay about the subject  “men vs.women and muscle mess.research say.”

    use two references minimum. do not plagiarize.use your own words.

    Download File

  • What planning has to do with preparedness?

    $15.00

    What does planning have to do with preparedness?  And…why would one want to do long-term community planning as part of community preparedness. Given the example of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, make an argument for how pre-disaster long-term community planning, if it had been done, might have improved the response and recovery processes.  Where possible, cite the literature on the Katrina/New Orleans response and recovery successes and failures.

    Download File

  • Cutaneous Glands Paper

    $5.00

    Main Post: subject : Cutaneous glands-5 types, location, functions.(1 page double spaced)  VERY IMPORTANT :WRITE IN YOUR OWN WORDS!!!

    1.    Your post must be HIGHLY ORGANIZED, ACCURATE and THOROUGH.

    2.    Reference sources that are used.

    3.    NOTE: The goal is NOT to retype the text but to break down the concept and clarify.

    You can quote the text but that portion must be clarified and explained by you.

    Download File

  • Relationship and Communication in Low Marital Satisfaction

    $10.00

    Relationship and Communication in Low Marital Satisfaction
    (should be a full two-pages long – double-spaced – APA style
    for all required sources):

    • Identify and briefly explain six relationship and communication issues that are correlated with low marital satisfaction.

    Use the text, plus 2 peer-reviewed academic journal articles to support your response.

    Download File

  • Stress Factors among Paramedics: Case Study of the Saudi Arabian Red Crescent

    $56.00

    Research paper

    This is a research project. I will upload a sample of paper and I want you to write the paper as the sample.
    The paper is about:  stress factors among paramedics, and what are some possible solutions?

    15 pages

    Download File

  • Past, Present and Future of Alzheimer’s Disease Through a Scientific Lens

    $20.00

    Alzheimer’s Disease Through a Scientific Lens

    Discussing the past, present and future of Alzheimer’s Disease through a Scientific lens

    For the signature assignment, you will develop a 3 – 4 page paper in which you address the following:

    • Talk about current status of Alzheimer’s Disease.
    • Describe the history of Alzheimer’s Disease.
    • Discuss any applicable scientific theory (or theories) related to Alzheimer’s Disease.
    • Explain “why” we should be interested in Alzheimer’s Disease.
    • Speculate on the future direction of research on Alzheimer’s Disease. after reviewing the past and present of it. That is, what are the “next steps” for research and a possible cure of Alzheimer’s Disease?
    Download File