Appraising the Literature
Name
Institution
Date
Oppenheimer (2010) takes a look at the 20-year Framingham heart study, and Elliott et al. (1999) take a look at the impact of chronic pain in the community. The Framingham heart study took place in Framingham, Massachusetts, between 1946 and 1966 (Oppenheimer, 2010). The Framingham heart study’s strengths and weaknesses are apart from being two decades-long and longitudinal; it has been based on over 3000 peer reviews, becoming an excellent basis of studies. The risk factors that jeopardize cardiac health, such as clogging and narrowing of the arteries, high blood pressure, elevated serum cholesterol, and homocysteine, are not a normal part of aging and did not occur as people become older (Oppenheimer, 2010). The study promoted good health, avoiding being overweight or obese, encouraging a healthy diet, and regular exercise. However, the study overestimates the risk factors in lower-risk groups. The impact of chronic pain in a community took place Grampian Region in Scotland (Elliott et al. 1999). The study’s strengths and weaknesses were the strict followings of clinical defined and inclusivity criteria to select participants. The integration of multiple scientific studies results in the burden of chronic pain, widespread chronic pain, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain in the UK. The exclusion of low-quality data on criteria that risked bias excludes many sources that could have increased the limited number of high-quality studies.
The potential source of bias in the Framingham heart study was predominantly white candidates of European descent (Oppenheimer, 2010). The lack of a more diverse group to base their conclusions on meant that the research was only tailored to people’s specific genetic makeup, excluding larger populations that could provide a more comprehensive perspective tailoring solution precisely to the racially profiled by the study. The potential sources of bias in the impact of chronic pain in the community are the numerical discrepancies in data represented in the source material and the over strict regulation measures that decrease the study’s sensitivity. The Framingham heart study solution has been solved in the subsequent recruitment cohorts that have included minority candidates. The impact of chronic pain in the community study limited itself to a time frame that is too narrow, showcasing a demographic that does not exhaustively represent the population at large. The restrictive requirements, if given a more exhaustive timeline, might have accommodated the study’s sensitivity.
The exclusion of questions that sought to understand the candidates’ financial prowess, making the study more friendly, excludes a critical factor (Oppenheimer, 2010). The knowledge of the food, especially those with a limited financial capability, can provide great pointers on the prevalence of cardiovascular diseases on a dietary basis. The likelihood of someone lying about their diet after giving information on their financial capability is a little harder. Someone’s financial ability also provides pointers on the places they reside in and the environmental factors that might affect and be pointers of risk factors associated with cardiovascular problems. In the impact of chronic pain in the community study, the lack of a standard measure for pain and the characteristic any, significant and severe as described by respondents is limiting (Elliott et al. 1999). Sometimes respondents need the scale of pain tolerance to group the various pain types giving pointers on best-suited medication to avoid the risk of overdose for those with low pain tolerance with too potent recommended pain drugs due to preliminary characterization.
References
Elliott, A. M., Smith, B. H., Penny, K. I., Smith, W. C., & Chambers, W. A. (1999). The epidemiology of chronic pain in the community. The Lancet, 354(9186), 1248-1252.
Oppenheimer, G. M. (2010). Framingham Heart Study: the first 20 years. Progress in cardiovascular diseases, 53(1), 55-61.