Final exam

Anonymous
timer Asked: Apr 7th, 2017
account_balance_wallet $10

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Step 1: Pick one of the four articles posted to Black Board and read it. Step 2: Answer the below questions about the article you read. Methodology The methodology of any research paper asks us to address the following items: • • • Study hypothesis Study population Sample size and statistical power Speak on each of the three points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. Don’t just tell me the study hypothesis, population, etc., but instead talk about the strengths or weaknesses of the 3 points above. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. Assignment The second component of the framework is assignment, or the selection of study participants for the study and control group(s). The three basic issues and key questions are as follows: • • • Process of assignment Confounding variables Masking Speak on each of the three points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. Don’t just tell me the process of assignment, confounding variables, etc., but instead talk about the strengths or weaknesses of the 3 points above. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. Assessment This is the measurement of outcomes or end points in the study group and in the control group. In order to assess the results of an investigation, researchers must define the outcome or end points they intend to measure. The assessment portion of research is considered valid when it fulfills these 3 criteria: • • • Measurement is Appropriate Measurement is Accurate Measurement is Precise Additionally, implementation of measurement or assessment should be: • • Complete Unaffected by the process Speak on each of the points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. Don’t just tell me about the measurement process and completeness, etc., but instead talk about the strengths or weaknesses of the points above. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. Results The fourth component of the framework is where we perform statistical calculations on the raw data collected during the assessment phase. In this component, we address 3 key questions: • • • Estimation Inference Adjustment Speak on each of the three points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. Don’t just tell me the process of estimation, inference, etc., but instead talk about the strengths or weaknesses of the 3 points above. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. Interpretation The fifth component asks us to address questions about the meaning of the investigations results for those who participated in the investigation. The 3 questions/issues that can be addressed by interpretation are: • • • Contributory cause of efficacy Harms Subgroups Speak on each of the three points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. Don’t just tell me how the study demonstrated efficacy or looks at harms, etc., but instead talk about the strengths or weaknesses of the 3 points above. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. Extrapolation The final component asks what the results of the investigation tell us about individuals not included in the study and for situations not directly addressed by the study. When conducting extrapolation, we ask how the investigation applied the results to: • • • People similar to the average participant in the investigation Situations that go beyond the range of the study’s data Populations or settings that differ from those in the investigation Speak on each of the three points above and talk about how your article excelled or failed at each of them. HINT: I hope you hit on some of the key terms from text. A C TA Obstetricia et Gynecologica AOGS M A I N R E SE A RC H A R TI C LE The efficacy of moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial KAROLINA PETROV FIERIL1, ANNA GLANTZ2 & MONIKA FAGEVIK OLSEN1 1 Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, and 2Antenatal Care, Primary Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden Key words Exercise, pregnancy, public health, randomized controlled trial Correspondence Karolina Petrov Fieril, N€ arh€ alsan, Rehabmottagning, Olskroken, 416 65 Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail: karolina.fieril@vgregion.se Conflict of interest The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article. Please cite this article as: Petrov Fieril K, Glantz A, Fagevik Olsen M. The efficacy of moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94: 35–42. Received: 14 April 2014 Accepted: 29 September 2014 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12525 Abstract Objectives. To assess the effect and safety of moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise during pregnancy. Design. Randomized controlled study. Setting. Two antenatal clinics in Gothenburg, Sweden. Population. Ninety-two healthy pregnant women. Methods. The intervention was administered during gestational weeks 14–25. The intervention group received supervised resistance exercise twice a week, performed at an activity level equivalent to within moderate-tovigorous (n = 51). The control group received generalized exercise recommendation, a home-based training program and a telephone follow up (n = 41). Main outcome measures. Health-related quality of life, physical strength, pain, weight, blood pressure, functional status, activity level, and perinatal data. Results. Functional status deteriorated during the intervention in both groups and pain increased. Significant differences between the groups were obtained only for birthweight. Newborns delivered by women who underwent resistance exercise during pregnancy were significantly heavier than those born to control women; 3561 (452) g vs. 3251 (437) g (p = 0.02), a difference that disappeared when adjustment was made for gestational age (p = 0.059). Both groups showed normal health-related quality of life, blood pressure, and perinatal data. Conclusions. These findings indicate that supervised, moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise does not jeopardize the health status of healthy pregnant women or the fetus during pregnancy, but instead appears to be an appropriate form of exercise in healthy pregnancy. BP, blood pressure; DRI, disability rating index; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; HRQoL, health-related quality of life; RCT, randomized controlled trials; SF-36, Short Form-36 Health Survey. Abbreviations: Introduction Maintaining a physically active lifestyle is associated with many benefits, including lower risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, some types of cancer, and depression (1). Exercise is defined as a planned, structured, and repetitive subset of physical activity that improves or maintains physical fitness, overall health or well-being as an intended intermediate or final objective (2). Pregnant, healthy women are recommended to do 30 min or more of light to moderate exercise a day on most, if not all, days of the week (3,4). Exercise during pregnancy is associated with reduced back pain (5), improved health perception (6), and weight gain control Key Message Supervised regular, moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise has no adverse effect on childbirth outcome, pain, or blood pressure. Further investigation into the use of resistance exercise during pregnancy is needed. ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 35 Resistance exercise during pregnancy (7). In the literature investigations have reported on the effect of aerobic exercise when adopted in pregnancy. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCT) have, however, examined the efficacy and safety of resistance exercise during pregnancy (8–10). One study found resistance exercise performed with an elastic band effective in improving glycaemic control in women with gestation diabetes mellitus (GDM) (9). No adverse impact on the delivery (10), or the newborn has been seen (8). Hence, in their review Nascimento et al. (11) suggested adding resistance exercise to the exercise recommendations. Although the exercise recommendations do not provide specific guidance for vigorous intensity exercise (3,4), Nascimento et al. (11) suggested that their results supported the promotion of moderate-to-vigorous prenatal exercise. Ruchat et al. (12) concluded that a walking program of vigorous intensity is safe and beneficial to both the mother and fetus, and also promotes decline in glucose concentrations among women at risk of GDM (13). In a prospective study Jukic et al. found an association between first-trimester vigorous exercise and longer gestation, and reduced risk of preterm births (14). To the best of our knowledge, no RCT has been conducted that studies prenatal resistance exercise at moderate-to-vigorous intensity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the health effect and safety of moderate-to-vigorous intensity resistance exercise when free weights are used by healthy women during pregnancy, with regard to health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain location, physical strength, body weight gain, blood pressure (BP), functional status, activity level, and childbirth outcomes. Material and methods Participants for this study were recruited from February 2006 through November 2006, and from September 2008 through April 2009, all from two antenatal clinics in Gothenburg, Sweden. Background variables did not significantly differ in between the two study periods. The participants were verbally informed about the study by midwives or they received written information available at the antenatal clinic. Those interested in participating contacted the research coordinator. The criteria of inclusion were: (i) Pregnancy <14 weeks of gestation; (ii) single pregnancy; (iii) absence of medical or obstetric diseases; (iv) ability to understand verbal and written Swedish. Criteria of exclusion followed the recommendation regarding contraindications according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (4). Approximately 1500 pregnant women had been registered at the antenatal clinics at that time (99% of Swedish women receiving combined obstetric and midwifery 36 K. Petrov Fieril et al. care have their deliveries in the public health system, via antenatal clinics) (15). Of 116 women willing to participate, 24 were excluded for either twin pregnancy or being ≥14 weeks of gestation. Hence, 92 women were included (Figure 1). The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board at the University of Gothenburg (D No. 353-05) and registered in the Research and Development Center in Sweden (registration number VGFOUGSB-4388). Written informed consent for participation was obtained from each participant. The CONSORT guidelines were followed while conducting the study. The women were enrolled at gestational week 13, at which time the research coordinator (physiotherapist) met with each and provided them with general exercise recommendations and a home training program. Participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group (allocation ratio 1:1). The research coordinator performed the randomization by using opaque sealed envelopes, which were randomly picked out before the meeting with each participant. All data were collected at a primary health care location by an investigator (physiotherapist) who was blinded to participant group status. The intervention group practised high-repetition, resistance training twice a week for 12 weeks (pregnancy weeks 14–25), performed using light barbells [1–10 lbs (0.45–4.5 kg)] and weight plates [2.5– 10 lbs (1.1–4.5 kg)], which was carried out while listening to music in a supervised (by the research coordinator) group exercise setting (16). The exercises were selfadjusted to each woman’s condition of pregnancy and performed at a self-estimated, moderate to vigorous intensity (17). Each session was 60 min long, including warm-up and wind-down. All major muscle groups were trained repeatedly (50–80 repetitions for each muscle group) during 3–5 min, including shorter breaks. The training was inspired by BODYPUMPTM (16) but adjusted to pregnant women: warm-up and relaxation periods were extended a few more minutes, squat jumps were exchanged for heel raises, the squats were less deep and the abdominal training was exchanged for pelvic-lift and static-abdominal training. All such training was performed with good form for trunk- and pelvic-floor muscle control and these were supervised by the research coordinator. Besides this training, additional exercises were recommended to the participants, including walking, bicycling, water-gymnastics, Pilates, yoga and resistance exercises. Compliance was defined as participation in at least two-thirds of all training sessions. Control group participants received general exercise recommendations during pregnancy and were informed of appropriate exercise and exercise frequency. Additionally, they were given written guidance and instruction on ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 K. Petrov Fieril et al. Resistance exercise during pregnancy Assessed for eligibility (n = 116) Excluded (n = 24) ♦ Not meeting inclusion criteria (n = 24) Enrollment Randomized (n = 92) Allocation Allocated to intervention group (n = 51) ♦ Received allocated intervention (n = 51) Allocated to control group (n = 41) ♦ Received allocated intervention (n = 41) Lost to follow up (n = 13) Lost to follow up (n = 7) Discontinued intervention (timeconstraints)(n = 5) Change of work (n = 2) Personal reasons (n = 1) Moving from town (= 1) Dislocated placenta (n = 1) Discomfort during exercise (n = 1) Pelvic girdle pain (n = 1) Miscarriage (n = 1) Follow up Not motivated (n = 3) Personal reasons (n = 2) Moving from town (n = 1) Miscarriage (n = 1) Analysis Analysed (n = 38) ♦ Excluded from analysis (n = 0) Analysed (n = 34) ♦ Excluded from analysis (n = 0) Figure 1. Flow diagram summarizing the study design. a general training program containing home exercises suitable for pregnancy, including pelvic-floor muscle training. They were offered a free visit to a physiotherapist if desired. Exercises were recommended to the control participants, including walking, bicycling, watergymnastics, Pilates, yoga and resistance exercises. In pregnancy week-18 the research coordinator contacted the controls by telephone for follow up. Before and after the intervention the participants filled in questionnaires and performed the following tests: HRQoL was measured using the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36; Swedish Acute Version 1.0) (18) SF-36 comprises 36 items, 35 of which are arranged in eight physical and mental health scales, and one being a self report of health change. Scores may be obtained ranging from 0 to 100. Higher scores positively correlate with higher levels of functioning. The eight sub-scales are: (i) physical functioning; (ii) role, physical; (iii) bodily pain; (iv) general health; (v) vitality; (vi) social functioning; (vii) role, emotional; and (viii) mental health. Pain was measured using a graphic (drawings) depiction of body locations, upon which the participant would localize the area of pain. Scores were assigned to indicate the presence or absence of pain in each of 45 body areas (19). Five areas located to the lower back and pelvis were selected for analysis. Hand-grip isometric strength was defined as the peak, voluntary, hand-grip force applied using the Grippit electronic hand-grip strength detector (GrippitAB, Gothenburg, Sweden), administered in accordance with standard laboratory protocol (20). Grip strength correlates with upper extremity strength (21). Weight gain and BP were obtained from medical records at the perinatal clinic, Primary Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden. Weight gain was measured in kilograms, wearing clothes but with no shoes. Functional status was measured by the Disability Rating Index (DRI) and recorded on a visual analogue scale, i.e. a self-estimation scale from 0 to 100, where 0 indicated no restricted activity and 100 indicated inability to perform the activity. The DRI includes 12 items that measure functions, including: dressing, outdoor walks, climbing stairs, sitting for a longer time, standing bent over a sink, carrying a bag, making bed, running, light physical activity, heavy physical activity, lifting heavy objects and participating in exercises/sports. During the intervention period all of the participants kept a structured diary of daily physical activity, according to the ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 37 Resistance exercise during pregnancy K. Petrov Fieril et al. Table 1. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics; mean values  SD or n (%). Baseline demographics Maternal age, mean (SD) Education, years at school, mean (SD) Prepregnancy body mass index, mean (SD) Activity level pregnancy week 13 (min/day), mean (SD) Walking Moderate Vigorous Primipara, n (%) Marital status, n (%) Married/ cohabiting, n (%) Smoking, n (%) Taking snuff, n (%) Intervention group (n = 38) Control group (n = 34) p-value 30.8 (3.6) 30.6 (3.4) 0.77 15.4 (1.79) 16.3 (1.8) 0.07 The participants estimated the number of minutes per day that they had performed the different activities. Perinatal data, including birthweight, birth length, gestational age at time of delivery and cesarean section rates were obtained from the Sahlgrenska University Hospital’s perinatal records. Statistical analysis 22.6 (2.5) 23.0 (2.6) 0.50 52 11.7 1.1 28 47 18.3 1.2 28 0.68 0.12 0.89 0.52 (47) (14.8) (3.2) (74) 38 (100) 1 (2.5) 1 (2.5) (58) (20.7) (4.3) (82) 33 (97) – – 0.47 0.52 0.52 short form of International Physical Activity Questionnaire (22). Each activity was divided into “vigorous intensity”, “moderate intensity”, “walking” and “sedentary”. The sample size calculation was calculated on a difference in HRQoL measured by SF-36. To detect a clinically significant difference between groups with 80% power and at the 5% significance level, and a difference between groups of 10 units, 40 participants were needed in each group. Group-mean differences in physical strength, body mass index, BP, activity level, birthweight, birth length, and gestational age were analyzed by the Student’s t-test or chi-squared test using statistical software SPSS version 22.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). Subgroup scores in SF-36 and DRI were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U-test. Birthweights adjusted for gestational week were converted to Z-scores. A p-value <0.05 (two-tailed) was defined as significant. Only participants who fully completed the trial according to the protocol were considered compliant and analyzed. Ninety-two women met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled (Figure 1). No significant differences in background characteristics were found between the group of women who dropped out and those for whom complete Figure 2. Group differences in Quality of Life (SF-36) between gestational weeks 13 and 25, respectively, Intervention group (n = 38) and Control group (n = 34). Abbreviations: PF, Physical Functioning; RP, Role Physical; BP, Bodily Pain; GH, General Health; VT, Vitality; SF, Social Functioning; RE, Role Emotional; MH, Mental Health. 38 ª 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 94 (2015) 35–42 K. Petrov Fieril et al. data ...

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors