Backgroundand methodology in health care
Thebackground section of the research article provides usefulinformation about the problem being addressed and the significance ofundertaking the study. The methodology section informed about thescope of the study, study subjects, duration, and the study designamong other pieces of information (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Thispaper will analyze the background and the methodology sections of thearticle “Parent-only treatment for childhood obesity: A randomizedcontrolled trials”.
Thestudy reported in the article “Parent-only treatment for childhoodobesity: A randomized controlled trials” was conducted to resolvethe problem of existing doubts about the effectiveness of theparent-only (PO) approach. The researchers intended to determine ifthe PO approach can be compared with other approaches used in theprevious studies, especially the parent + child approach. In essence,the researchers’ main objective was to address the problem ofchildhood obesity, but they had to determine if the PO strategy isviable enough to help them address the underlying problem.
Theproblem of the effectiveness of the PO approach is significant tohealth care administrators because the rate of childhood obesity hasbeen increasing exponentially. The article reported that 31 % of kidsare obese, which accounts for about 4-5 million kinds in the UnitedStates (Boutelle, Cafri & row, 2011). This implies that thehealth care administrators would be more interested in determiningwhether the PO approach can help them in addressing the pressingchallenge of childhood obesity.
Thepurpose or reason for the study was to compare the PO method oftreating the childhood obesity and the parent + child method in orderto determine if the PO can be considered inferior to the parent +child method. In essence, the research was conducting to determine ifthe PO approach can be considered as equally viable as the parent +child method, could provide similar outcome, and prove to be costeffective compared to the parent + child method.
Thereis no research questions provided in the article. However, it wouldbe expected the research questions to be as follows what are some ofthe key variables that could lead to a conclusion that PO treatmentis not superior to parent + child treatment approach? This questionwould have allowed the authors in taking their stand on which of thetwo treatment approaches is inferior or superior and present anargument regarding the extent to which the result of the study provesthe effectiveness of the parent-only treatment.
Thenull hypothesis for the study reported in the article is that the POinterventions are inferior to parent + child interventions. Thealternative hypothesis states that the PO intervention or treatmentcannot be considered inferior to PC intervention. These hypotheseswere tested by comparing and contrasting the two types of childhoodobesity interventions (including the parent-only and the parent +child intervention during the post-treatment and follow-up phases.
Thestudy reported in the article has both dependent and independentvariables. The dependent variable included in the study is thereduction in the weight of obese children. Independent variablesinclude dietary intake, weight of the parent, and physical activity.Both dependent and independent variables were evaluated for the twotypes of interventions (including parent-only and parent + childinterventions) after treatment (5 months) and the follow-up period(11 months).
Reviewof related literature
Literaturereview supports the study in the article in three ways. First,studies conducted in the past indicate that childhood obesity hasincreased at a high rate in spite of the availability of other typesof intervention, such as parent + child. For example, Carroll,Curtin, Lamb & Flegal (2010) (cited in Boutelle, Cafri & row,2011) reported that over 4 million children are suffering fromobesity in the United States. This justifies the need for a studythat will assess the effectiveness of an alternative intervention,which is a parent-only method. Secondly, previous studies haveidentified that the current types of interventions are intensive andexpensive Epstein (1996) (cited in Boutelle, Cafri & row, 2011),which justifies the need for a study that will identify a cheaper andviable intervention. Lastly, previous studies show that the POapproach is viable. However, it has remained unclear whether it canprovide similar outcomes as the parent + child intervention.
Theresearchers used a randomized controlled trial study design, whichinvolved the randomization of parent-child yards, who were thensubjected to PC and PO conditions. The number of subjects studied was160, which was collected in 80 parent-child pairs. These studysubjects were found in San Diego and Minnesota, but there was noparticular organization that was studied. The study took about 11months, which included five months of treatment and six months offollow-up.
Thebackground and the methodology sections of the article “Parent-onlytreatment for childhood obesity: randomized controlled trials”informs about the purpose, hypothesis, variables, and the studydesign of the study reported in the article. This implies that thetwo sections (background and the methodology) are significant becausethey help the readers understand the key objectives of a given studyand the approach used to accomplish that study. In the articleconsidered in this paper, the purpose of the study was to assess theinferiority of PO over PC intervention, which was accomplishedthrough a randomized controlled trial.
Baxter,P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Studydesign and implementation for novice researchers. TheQualitative Report,13 (4), 544-559.
Boutelle,N., Cafri, G. & row, J. (2011). Parent-only treatment forchildhood obesity: A randomized controlled trial. Obesity,19 (3), 574-580. doi:10.1038/oby.2010.238
Epstein,H. (1996). Family-based behavioral intervention for obese children.InternationalJournal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorder, 20,4-21.
Ogden,L., Carroll, M., Curtin, L., Lamb, M. & Flegal, K. (2010).Prevalence of high body mass index in US children and adolescents2007-2008. JAMA,303:242–249.