Explain the research process and what you can assume from the study from the following perspectives: How is the literature review used in this research?
The literature review used in this study was archival and was pulled from three different sources. First was the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan registry to identify all live births in Alberta, Canada excluding aboriginal births. This registry contains information on sex, birth weight, gestational age, and data on the mother. The children were followed until they reached 10 years of age. Secondly, the physician’s claims database was used to identify the emergency room visits with a primary diagnosis of asthma. Thirdly, Canadian census data was used to identify reported median family income and patient demographics by sorting the postal codes to determine neighborhood area. What are ethical considerations for data collection?
Ethical considerations for data collection in this study are not really an issue. Instead of pulling names on reports, a numbering system can be assigned to follow the individual participants. There is no data collection directly from the participants, so ethical considerations are not a factor in this study. What is the data telling us in terms of statistical analysis? In terms of statistical analysis, the data shows information regarding the number of children in the very poor, poor, and non-poor groups as well as area of residence, gestational age, birth weight, birth defects, single parent families, and office visits for asthma. The study shows that children in the very poor group were more likely to have more determining factors against them that contribute to a higher asthma rate and higher amount of visits to the emergency room for asthma treatment. Are the findings statistically significant?
I believe that the findings are statistically significant. The findings show the differences between the groups on the multiple features analyzed. After the researchers conducted a secondary analysis, the findings of the study withheld the findings and supported the data collected. Do the conclusions match the results of the study?
Yes, the conclusions match the results of the study. The researchers set out to determine if Canadian children, grouped into very poor, poor, and non-poor, have similar access to primary care, preventative care, and emergent care for their asthma. The findings and statistical data support that fact that the very poor and poor children access more emergent care for asthma care rather than primary or preventative care even though all citizens have access to a universal health care system. Do the conclusions answer the research questions in the definition of the problem? Yes, the conclusions found in the results of this study answer the definition of the problem. Do very poor, poor, and non-poor children access care for asthma treatment differently by using primary or preventative care versus emergent care even though they are all insured under Canada’s universal coverage health care system? Are the conclusions appropriate?
The conclusions are appropriate for the study done. The findings from the collected data support the hypothesis. The conclusions show that very poor and poor children have more encounters in the emergency room for their asthma than non-poor children. Do you have enough information to make a decision on the effectiveness of the study? Yes, the collection of data over a ten-year period, using the primary diagnosis of asthma in the emergency room, and demographic information to track the participant’s access of health care is enough information to make a decision about the effectiveness of this study. If so, is it effective?
The information is effective because of the length of time the data was collected gives enough time for multiple visits and the possibility to move within the socioeconomic status groups. The data was analyzed and a secondary analysis was performed to confirm the findings of the study.