All your Writing needs covered

Factor For The Consumption Of Fish

Calculate the price
your order:

275 words
Approximate price
$ 0.00

Factor For The Consumption Of Fish Question: Discuss about the Factor for The Consumption Of Fish.     Answer: What Is The Study Question? In the study the authors tried to investigate whether consumption of fish (including fried fish) has any relation to the incidence of type 2 diabetes. What Are The Study Factors And Outcome Factors? The study factor was the consumption of fish (including fried fish) in a given population, and the incidence of type 2 diabetes among them. The Outcome factor was to analyze whether any significant relation exists between these two studied factors. Who Are The Study Participants? The study involved Swedish men in the age group of 45 to 79 years resifing in Örebro and Västmanland. The study selected 35,583 individuals from 48,850 men who were sent an invitation to participate in the study. Are They Likely To Be Representative Of The Population Of Interest? The selected population included only men in the age group of 45 to 79, residing in central Sweden, and excluded individuals diagnosed with cancer or diabetes or those with a history of cardiovascular diseases. Thus, the population is unlikely to represent the entire population. Is The Study Design The ‘Best’ Way To Answer The Research Question? The study design utilises an effective way to answer the research question. The study utilises an explorative approach to identify an association between the consumption of fish (including fried fish) with the disgnosis of type 2 diabetes. An ideal approach however would have been to use a ‘causal’ approach between consumption of fish and diabetes through which it could be ascertained if consumption of fish can cause diabetes or not. The study was however feasable, as it selected the population from a prospective population study done in 1997, and followed the ethical standards of research (approved by Ethical Review Board at the Karolinska Institutet.   Specifically For Case-Control Studies: Selection Bias Was exposure prevalent or incident? The exposure was incident Was Everyone Free Of The Outcome At Entry? Yes everyone were free of the outcomes while entering the study. Was Everyone Accounted For? All the responses were accounted for while selecting the study group. Was Loss Balanced Between Exposed And Unexposed? Yes the authors balanced the exposed and unexposed. Were Those Loss Similar To The Rest Of The Cohort? The loss was similar to the cohort study. Did Cases And Controls Arise From The Same Population? The comparison of the study was done between men with high fish consumption (more than 2 servings per week) with men consuming less fish (less than 1 serving per week), as the control group. Both the study group and control group were from the same selected population (Harding et al., 2015). Were Only Incident Cases Selected? The study did not use incident cases (as individuals diagnosed with diabetes were excluded). Instead the stuudy tried the explore the relation between fish consumption and the incidence of diabetes among them. Was The Response Rate In Cases Similar To Controls? The response rates in the study group was partially similar to the control group, due to which the authors found no significant correlation between the consumption of fish and type 2 diabetes. The selected population was identified from the prospective population study done in 1997 in Sweden, and the control group consisted of individuals from the population who consumed the least amount of fish. The data from these two groups showed little variation with the data on the incidence of type 2 diabetes in these groups. Measurement Error: Were Outcomes Blind To Exposure? The outcomes were not blind to exposure, as it measured the relation between exposure and outcome. Were There Systematic Differences In Care? NO both the studied and control group received same care. Was There Any Error In Assessment Of Study Factor Or Outcome Factor? No there was no errors in the assessment. Was It Systematic? The study was systematic. Was It Differential? The study was differential. Was There Any Error In Assessment Of Study Factor Or Outcome Factor? The study used a multivariate model and adjusted estimates comparing the highest and lowest categories of consumption of fish, which provided a dependable and reliable estimation of the hazard ratios of type 2 diabetes associated with the different categories of fish consumption in the selected population. Such strategy have allowed to minimise any errors in the assessment of the research question. This showed that the outcome factors provided a reliable and error free strategy. The studied factor that is the consumption of fish was also measured accurately based on the information provided by the participants, and the outcomes were assessed from changes in the baseline characteristics. However such a method coulod be prone to errors, as it assumes that the onset of diabetes is always associated with changes in the baseline data. Confounding: Was There Any Evidence Of Potential Confounding: Yes, there were potential confounders that were identified in the study design. Were All Potential Confounders Measured? All the potential confounders (such as the consumption of fried fish and the presence of environmental contaminants) were also included and measured in the study as they could potentially affect the outcome of the study. Were They Measured Accurately And Without Bias? All the variables were accurately measued, eliminating the chances of bias in the study. Were Important Risk Factors Equally Distributed Among Exposed And Unexposed? Yes the risk factors of diabetes type 2 was distributed across both the studied and control group (Anothaisintawee et al., 2016). Was Confounding Managed By Design Or In Analysis? The confounding factors were managed both in the design and analysis of the study. In the designing, the consumption of fried fish as well as presence of environmental contaminants were analysed, while during the analysis of the study these factors were used to degisn the adjusted model for the harzard of diabetes (Hausenblas et al., 2015). Study Results: How Strong Is The Strength Of Association? The study did not show a strong association between diabetes and the consumption of fish. However there was a significant correlation between diabetes and the consumption of fried fish and also with the presence of environmental contaminants in the fish (Koenig et al., 2015). Is Residual Confounding Likely To Be An Issue? There is a possibility of residual confounding since the association of the confounding factors still remained after the adjustment (Banack & Kaufman, 2015). Are The Conclusions Valid? The result showed that no significant relation existed between diabetes and the consumption of fish, except for the consumption of fried fish or with the presencxe of environmental contaminants, which seemed to be a valid conclusion as it was supported by the analysis of the data from the study (Henry et al., 2015).   References: Anothaisintawee, T., Reutrakul, S., Van Cauter, E., & Thakkinstian, A. (2016). Sleep disturbances compared to traditional risk factors for diabetes development: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep medicine reviews, 30, 11-24. Banack, H. R., & Kaufman, J. S. (2015). From bad to worse: collider stratification amplifies confounding bias in the “obesity paradox”. European journal of epidemiology, 30(10), 1111-1114. Harding, J. L., Shaw, J. E., Peeters, A., Cartensen, B., & Magliano, D. J. (2015). Cancer risk among people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: disentangling true associations, detection bias, and reverse causation. Diabetes care, 38(2), 264-270. Hausenblas, H. A., Schoulda, J. A., & Smoliga, J. M. (2015). Resveratrol treatment as an adjunct to pharmacological management in type 2 diabetes mellitus—systematic review and meta?analysis. Molecular nutrition & food research, 59(1), 147-159. Henry, S. G., Jerant, A., Iosif, A. M., Feldman, M. D., Cipri, C., & Kravitz, R. L. (2015). Analysis of threats to research validity introduced by audio recording clinic visits: Selection bias, Hawthorne effect, both, or neither?. Patient education and counseling, 98(7), 849-856. Koenig, J., Windham, B. G., Ferrucci, L., Sonntag, D., Fischer, J. E., Thayer, J. F., & Jarczok, M. N. (2015). Association strength of three adiposity measures with autonomic nervous system function in apparently healthy employees. The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 19(9), 879-882.

Basic features

  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support

On-demand options

  • Writer's samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading

Paper format

  • 275 words per page
  • 12pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, CHicago/Turabian, Havard)

Guaranteed originality

We guarantee 0% plagiarism! Our orders are custom made from scratch. Our team is dedicated to providing you academic papers with zero traces of plagiarism.

Affordable prices

We know how hard it is to pay the bills while being in college, which is why our rates are extremely affordable and within your budget. You will not find any other company that provides the same quality of work for such affordable prices.

Best experts

Our writer are the crème de la crème of the essay writing industry. They are highly qualified in their field of expertise and have extensive experience when it comes to research papers, term essays or any other academic assignment that you may be given!

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

error: Content is protected !!
Open chat
Need Homework Help? Let's Chat
Need Help With Your Assignment? Lets Talk