As the text points out, causal reasoning is used in clinical studies. As a professional in the health field, you will undoubtedly be referring to cause/effect studies for the rest of your professional life. In this discussion, you are asked to expand and deepen your understanding of clinical studies.
In 1999, a study on the causes of myopia appeared in the prestigious journal Nature (Quinn). The study received wide-spread publicity in leading newspapers, such as the New York Times, and on television outlets, such as CBS and CNN. Within a year, another article in Nature followed up the 1999 study (Zadnik et al., 2000). The studies had dramatically different findings.
Initial Post Instructions
Using what you have learned from the text, as well as any other sources you may find useful (including the website in the Required Resources), analyze and evaluate the methodology of both studies and how methodology affected the differences in how the studies were reported.
Einarsen (1999) states that a lassa-faire leadership can create friction within the groups due to the lack of leadership. Although this maybe the case, due to the small group of the crew. The MERIT team used a very autocratic leaderships due to the possible seriousness of the wounds, as this method provided clear instructions on what needed to be done without having to worry about why (Stanley, 2016). A democratic leadership style may have worked well due to it allowing the delegation of the work to varying crew members to do the tasks required (Gastil, 1994) However due to the nature of injuries to the patient, they would not have benefitted from a democratic leadership style, as Frandsen (2014) states this style takes time to collect on the information and is slow. Frandsen (2014) states a more relaxed style, such as democratic, would have been good to put the patient at ease and be able gather the opinions of everyone who was there, which can lead to better staff satisfaction as their opinions are seen as of value. Frandsen (2014) does go on to explain that this process takes a long time to process the opinions and can lead to anxiety in experienced staff. This style of leadership would not have been effective as the situation required a rapid decision process. After the patient had been transferred to the major trauma centre for further assessment, I was able to reflect on the job with the senior paramedic and the MERIT team doctor about how the incident went. Pegg (2003) described the 5C’s of the mentoring model that works Discussing the challenges that we faced when dealing with the patient, the choices that we had, the consequences of our actions, what solutions that we could create and finally what was the conclusion of all our efforts. The author goes on to name this theory as the “pulling and pushing” methods between the mentor and the mentee. This type of method is a long term ongoing development style and was helpful after the situation to be able to look at how I had performed in my first trauma situation. Conclusion Zenger, Folkman & Stinnett (2010) suggest that the best leaders are often those who are able to inspire people to do the best work are leaders who are able to connect on an emotional level. Goleman (2011) states that the best leaders, no matter what style they use or what skills they have, are able to connect on an emotional level with those around them by having “emotional intelligence”. I initially chose the authoritative role as stated by Feldman et al (201>GET ANSWER