GROUP A: Pham, Ngoc Minh, and Karen Eggleston. “Diabetes Prevalence and Risk Factors Among Vietnamese Adults: Findings From Community-Based Screening Programs.” Diabetes care 38.5 (2015): e77-e78.
Read the introduction section of the paper and, answer the following questions:
- Is the purpose or aim of the research clearly explained?
- Is the need for the research justified?
- Is the study placed in context with previous work in the area?
- Is the research question explicitly stated? (and what is the question?)
GROUP A: Pham, Ngoc Minh, and Karen Eggleston. “Diabetes Prevalence and Risk Factors Among Vietnamese Adults: Findings From Community-Based Screening Programs.” Diabetes care 38.5 (2015): e77-e78.
Read the method section of the paper and answer the following questions:
Is the chosen research method stated and justified?
- Is the research tool adequately described?
If existing instruments were used, is the original source cited and information on psychometric properties provided?
If new instruments were developed, is the development and testing of them described and justified?
Was the questionnaire pre-tested?
- Is the sample appropriate and adequate?
Was the sampling frame appropriate?
Is the sample size large enough?
Is the response rate acceptable? (and is there a discussion of the differences between responders and non-responders?)
Was the data collection strategy appropriate, rigorous and ethical?
- Was the data analysis appropriate?
Was the choice of data analysis methods explained and justified? Were the specific tests used appropriate for the data?
GROUP A: Pham, Ngoc Minh, and Karen Eggleston. “Diabetes Prevalence and Risk Factors Among Vietnamese Adults: Findings From Community-Based Screening Programs.” Diabetes care 38.5 (2015): e77-e78.
Read the results and discussion sections of the paper and, answer the following questions:
- Are the results presented clearly and concisely?
Is all of the relevant data reported?
Are possible sources of bias/confounding acknowledged? Is data presented in tables consistent with that in the text?
Does the discussion place the results in the context of the existing literature?
Are any differences in findings between this and previous studies critically reflected on?
Are the limitations of the study discussed?
Are any conclusions drawn justified by the findings?
