Gabris and Hijar were interested in developing and testing an intervention to reduce anxiety and asthma symptoms among young minority adolescents with asthma. They began by undertaking a thorough literature review of both the qualitative literature on adolescents’ experience of asthma and other chronic illnesses in children and literature on the effects of various interventions for related populations. As a means of better understanding the needs of young minority adolescents living in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods, and their barriers to self-management of asthma, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews with a sample of 25 asthmatic youth. They also held focus group sessions with 14 parents of adolescent children with asthma to assess ways in which parental support plays a role in managing the illness. On the basis of their preliminary work, Gabris and Hijar formulated a conceptual model that integrated concepts from self-care theory and stress and coping theories. The model was the basis for developing a 4-week psychoeducational program that included relaxation-breathing training and self-management training. The intervention involved educational sessions, role-playing scenarios, and a CD for home practice. The intervention was tested for feasibility and preliminary effectiveness using a pretest–posttest one-group design with a sample of 50 students and their mothers, none of whom had participated in the in-depth study. The outcomes of interest were anxiety levels, knowledge about asthma self-management, self-perceived health status, and peak expiratory flow.
a. Would the intervention described in this abstract be considered a complex intervention? If yes, what are elements that make it complex? (2 points)
b. How many phases of an intervention study were briefly described in this abstract? (2 points)
c. Were the data collected in this study qualitative, quantitative, or both? (2 points)
d. What sequencing approach was used in this study? (2 points)
e. What type of mixed methods sampling strategy was used in this study? (2 points)
ANSWER:
- a.
- b.
- c.
- d.
- e.
- Here is a brief summary of a fictitious study. Read the summary and then respond to the following questions.
DiSanto and colleagues developed a community-based fall prevention intervention for frail older adults and their caretakers, using guidelines from the Medical Research Council. A 5-week pilot of the intervention protocols was undertaken in one large urban area (weekly sessions of 1-hour duration). Patient–caretaker dyads were recruited through geriatricians, who screened for eligibility. They pilot tested the intervention for feasibility with respect to recruitment success (goal of at least 5 dyads per week), eligibility criteria appropriateness (elders with mild cognitive impairment were included), attrition (at least 80% completion of follow-up data collection desired), contamination of treatments (controls receiving no parts of the intervention), and preliminary efficacy (for four outcomes: number of falls, self-efficacy, gait, and balance). The design for the pilot was a randomized design in which consenting dyads were assigned at random to the intervention group or a wait-list control group. During the 12-week recruitment period, 36 dyads consented to participate, 18 of which were assigned to the intervention group. Quantitative data were used to assess feasibility outcomes and preliminary efficacy. In-depth interviews were conducted at the end of the intervention with 5 dyads in each group to gain further insights. Follow-up data for efficacy outcomes were obtained from 27 participants. The findings revealed no statistically significant group differences for any outcomes, although the effect size estimates were moderate. None of the patients in the control group had any exposure to the intervention protocols. Patients with cognitive impairment struggled to complete all the intervention exercises. Some of the participants found the duration of each session to be onerous. The researchers concluded that they needed to make some revisions to the intervention and study protocols before launching a full-scale trial.
a. Would you characterize this study as a feasibility study or a pilot study? (1 point)
b. Was this study designed as a mixed methods study? (1 point)
c. Was the design for the study one that is consistent with the nature of the inquiry? (1 point)
d. Was the sample size one that conforms to expert recommendations for such studies? (1 point)
e. Did the researchers specify objectives for their pilot work? If yes, how many? (1 point)
f. Was a criterion established for recruitment? If yes, was the criterion met? (1 point)
g. Was a criterion for attrition established? If yes, was the criterion met? (1 point)
h. Was hypothesis testing for efficacy undertaken in this study? (1 point)
i. Was there any preliminary evidence of intervention efficacy in this study? (1 point)
j. Did the researchers conclude that they could move forward with a full-scale randomized trial? (1 point)
Sample Solution