Lately I've been learning a lot about survey research, not only in this course but also in Development and Evaluation of Health Promotion Programs. I hadn't realized how complicated and planned out surveys can be. In the past I have conducted surveys for school projects and I never thought about how the way a question is worded can provoke a certain response. In order to get sound results from research it's important to have a thought out, non-biased survey. It's also important for a researcher to chose the correct administration technique. This can be complicated depending on the certain focus group, geographic area, and age/gender specific participants. The fact that more women than men fill out surveys was surprising to me. With some thought it's not really unexpected. This fact can seriously shape a specific survey design depending on what researchers are looking for.
I think it's interesting how a certain model can work better for a specific situation. For instance if you are in hurry to get results a telephone survey may be your best bet. With a Likert Scale you give an individual the option to be undecided, in other even numbered scales essentially you force the subject to have an opinion one way or the other. From my own experience filling out surveys I never realized or thought about why sensitive questions are toward the end. It makes complete sense, you wouldn't want to offend a person in the beginning, before they've even begun.
The material we are covering in this class is going to be very helpful for the project I'm developing. Our focus is on evaluating a committee that is developing a taste testing program. We will be evaluating them after there first round of implementation so it's important that we get the right information to help them be more successful in the future.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Fernald Radiation Studies
In the early 1950's Professor of nutrition Robert S Harris conducted studies on 125 mentally retarded patients at the Fernand State School in Waltham, Mass. He was studying the absorption of calcium and iron in patients diets by feeding them milk and cereal that contained radio active tracers.
These experiments were first made public in 1993 and were rigorously investigated by the Task Force on Human Research. Experts concluded that the participants were not subjected to dangerous levels of radiation. The nutrition research used less than one billionth of an ounce of radioactive material, these levels are between 30%-99% lower than todays standards.
President Charles Vest and David Lister declared that the study was performed without informed consent, which meant many students and there parents were not aware of these experiments. They acknowledged the ethical implications of the study and offered an apology. Lister said, "I was sorry to hear that at least some of the young people who participated in this research and their parents apparently were unaware that the study involved radioactive tracers." They also offered that the study reached it's goal in enhancing the understanding of nutritional processes in young adults.
At a news conference on May 9, 1994 the Task Force on Human Research announced that subjects in the radiation study were not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation.
Reflection:
This study does not follow some very important parts of the Nuremberg Code one of which is the first principle regarding consent. The participants involved were not consenting nor could they technically consent given their psychological state. The first step researchers should have taken was to get consent from parents or guardians. This experiment did have potential to benefit society although the information could have been obtained by other means. The third principle states that human experimentation should be based on animal research, and knowledge of the natural course of events disease or problems. At this time in history I am fairly sure that scientists were aware of the effects of exposure to radiation, therefore they shouldn't have been taking the chance. The same goes for the fourth and fifth principle, they were exposing non consenting children to something that could be questionably harmful. It's very doubtful that the same results couldn't be gotten somewhere else. "The degree of risk should never exceed the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved." I thought this was an interesting statement because the degree of risk is an evolving concept what is dangerous to one, may not be at all to another. The seventh concept wasn't even remotely met. Luckily, qualified personal were conducting the experiment, however the judgment exercised is questionable. The subjects had no chance of withdrawing on their own will because they weren't even aware they were in a study. The final principle is questionable, no one can know for sure what the investigators were thinking. One would hope that the researchers would be willing and even happy to stop a study that was hurting someone but thats not always the case.
Overall, I think its clear that the Fernald Radiation Studies were unethical in general, and absolute if comparing to the Nuremberg Code.
Reference
By Abhilash R. Vaishnav
Staff Reporter
These experiments were first made public in 1993 and were rigorously investigated by the Task Force on Human Research. Experts concluded that the participants were not subjected to dangerous levels of radiation. The nutrition research used less than one billionth of an ounce of radioactive material, these levels are between 30%-99% lower than todays standards.
President Charles Vest and David Lister declared that the study was performed without informed consent, which meant many students and there parents were not aware of these experiments. They acknowledged the ethical implications of the study and offered an apology. Lister said, "I was sorry to hear that at least some of the young people who participated in this research and their parents apparently were unaware that the study involved radioactive tracers." They also offered that the study reached it's goal in enhancing the understanding of nutritional processes in young adults.
At a news conference on May 9, 1994 the Task Force on Human Research announced that subjects in the radiation study were not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation.
Reflection:
This study does not follow some very important parts of the Nuremberg Code one of which is the first principle regarding consent. The participants involved were not consenting nor could they technically consent given their psychological state. The first step researchers should have taken was to get consent from parents or guardians. This experiment did have potential to benefit society although the information could have been obtained by other means. The third principle states that human experimentation should be based on animal research, and knowledge of the natural course of events disease or problems. At this time in history I am fairly sure that scientists were aware of the effects of exposure to radiation, therefore they shouldn't have been taking the chance. The same goes for the fourth and fifth principle, they were exposing non consenting children to something that could be questionably harmful. It's very doubtful that the same results couldn't be gotten somewhere else. "The degree of risk should never exceed the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved." I thought this was an interesting statement because the degree of risk is an evolving concept what is dangerous to one, may not be at all to another. The seventh concept wasn't even remotely met. Luckily, qualified personal were conducting the experiment, however the judgment exercised is questionable. The subjects had no chance of withdrawing on their own will because they weren't even aware they were in a study. The final principle is questionable, no one can know for sure what the investigators were thinking. One would hope that the researchers would be willing and even happy to stop a study that was hurting someone but thats not always the case.
Overall, I think its clear that the Fernald Radiation Studies were unethical in general, and absolute if comparing to the Nuremberg Code.
Reference
By Abhilash R. Vaishnav
Staff Reporter
Volume 114 >> Issue 28 : Wednesday, June 22, 1994
The Tech • 84 Massachusetts Avenue • Suite 483 • Cambridge, Mass. 02139-4300
The Tech • 84 Massachusetts Avenue • Suite 483 • Cambridge, Mass. 02139-4300
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Contraceptive Use Among the Poor in Indonesia
What was the question?
Because there has been a recent decline in family planning funding as well as an economic crisis in Indonesia publicly provided contraceptives have declined. This study was designed to find out whether or not these changes have affected the rate of contraceptive use in poor Indonesian woman. The study also looked into the actual reasons for the use of modern methods as opposed to more traditional (withdrawal, periodic abstinence) contraceptives. Two theories were mentioned, the "supply-side" as well as the "demand-side." The supply side approach proposed that lower contraceptive use by low income individuals would suggest that economical and geographic barriers were the cause for a decrease. Demand side offered a different viewpoint: poor woman are less likely to use contraceptives because of their culture, values and opinions on large family asset.
What was done?
The data for analysis included 29,500 woman from 2002 to 2003 and was drawn from the IDHS. Socioeconomic status was accounted for by the number of material possessions within a household. This didn't include quantities of food which changes rapidly at different times of year. This process of separating woman into socioeconomic groups was very important to the results of the study, grouping were as follows: extremely poor, moderately poor, and better off. Respondents were divided into two groups according to age, 15-34, and 35-49. Age effects results tremendously because of the amount of living children already, as well as health factors such as menopause. Woman disclosed their ideal number of children was as well as how they plan to maintain that ideal. Woman who used contraceptives told how they got them, which kind they used (short or long term) and finally, how much they cost. Woman who did not use any modern form of contraceptives were responded with there reasons. The study also examined correlations between exposure to family planning media messages and those who weren't.
What was found?
Better off woman wanted, and had less children. Poor woman who wanted to take contraceptives paid for them through the private sector out of pocket. However, there were significant discounts. Although short term hormonal methods were very inexpensive most users did not obtain them free of cost, long term contraceptives were more expensive but users were able to obtain them for a very discounted or at no cost. Higher rates of woman who reported exposure to family planning messages ( "Two is enough") corresponded to increased rates of modern contraceptives use.
What does this study mean?
In order to increase the use of modern contraceptives multiple factors must be addressed. Poor woman are less educated, and have less exposure to media messages. These factors account for certain cultural and attitudinal ways that contribute to contraceptive use. Simply subsidizing prices will not be effective. A multi dimensional approach is necessary to change long standing principles and values regarding religion and the notion that a large family is of economic value.
References
Schoemaker, J. (2005, September 31). Contraceptive Use Among the Poor in
Indonesia. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1-10. Retrieved
September 14, 2007, from CINAHL database.
Because there has been a recent decline in family planning funding as well as an economic crisis in Indonesia publicly provided contraceptives have declined. This study was designed to find out whether or not these changes have affected the rate of contraceptive use in poor Indonesian woman. The study also looked into the actual reasons for the use of modern methods as opposed to more traditional (withdrawal, periodic abstinence) contraceptives. Two theories were mentioned, the "supply-side" as well as the "demand-side." The supply side approach proposed that lower contraceptive use by low income individuals would suggest that economical and geographic barriers were the cause for a decrease. Demand side offered a different viewpoint: poor woman are less likely to use contraceptives because of their culture, values and opinions on large family asset.
What was done?
The data for analysis included 29,500 woman from 2002 to 2003 and was drawn from the IDHS. Socioeconomic status was accounted for by the number of material possessions within a household. This didn't include quantities of food which changes rapidly at different times of year. This process of separating woman into socioeconomic groups was very important to the results of the study, grouping were as follows: extremely poor, moderately poor, and better off. Respondents were divided into two groups according to age, 15-34, and 35-49. Age effects results tremendously because of the amount of living children already, as well as health factors such as menopause. Woman disclosed their ideal number of children was as well as how they plan to maintain that ideal. Woman who used contraceptives told how they got them, which kind they used (short or long term) and finally, how much they cost. Woman who did not use any modern form of contraceptives were responded with there reasons. The study also examined correlations between exposure to family planning media messages and those who weren't.
What was found?
Better off woman wanted, and had less children. Poor woman who wanted to take contraceptives paid for them through the private sector out of pocket. However, there were significant discounts. Although short term hormonal methods were very inexpensive most users did not obtain them free of cost, long term contraceptives were more expensive but users were able to obtain them for a very discounted or at no cost. Higher rates of woman who reported exposure to family planning messages ( "Two is enough") corresponded to increased rates of modern contraceptives use.
What does this study mean?
In order to increase the use of modern contraceptives multiple factors must be addressed. Poor woman are less educated, and have less exposure to media messages. These factors account for certain cultural and attitudinal ways that contribute to contraceptive use. Simply subsidizing prices will not be effective. A multi dimensional approach is necessary to change long standing principles and values regarding religion and the notion that a large family is of economic value.
References
Schoemaker, J. (2005, September 31). Contraceptive Use Among the Poor in
Indonesia. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1-10. Retrieved
September 14, 2007, from CINAHL database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)