WE WRITE CUSTOM ACADEMIC PAPERS

100% Original, Plagiarism Free, Tailored to your instructions

Order Now!

Diabetes is a global problem that has become prevalent in various parts of the world

PART A
Introduction
Diabetes is a global problem that has become prevalent in various parts of the world. This condition can be described as a metabolic disease where an individual has high blood sugar level. This can be due to limited insulin production or poor response of the body cells to the insulin produced. There are two types of diabetes: type I diabetes and type II diabetes. In type I diabetes, the body does not produce the insulin hormone. On the other hand, in type II diabetes, the body fails to properly use the insulin produced. Those in the nursing profession should take diabetes seriously as this condition has no cure, but can only be managed.
The United States ranks as one of the countries in the world with a high prevalence of diabetes. Essentially, over 25 million people accounting for about 8 per cent of the US population are suffering from diabetes. In the US, there are various factors that affect the distribution of the disease among the population. These factors include age, gender, socio-economic status, race and ethnicity (Gakidou, et al. 2011).In the UK, there are over 2.6 million individuals who are suffering from diabetes. This figure is expected to grow to about 4 million individuals by the year 2025. It is estimated that 4 per cent of the UK population is suffering from diabetes. In the UK, factors such as ethnicity, age, race, gender and socio-economic status were also noted to affect the prevalence of diabetes (Radia, 2009).
PART B

Nursing research study in the USA

Synopsis:Zhanga, Q., Wang, Y. and Huang, E.S. (2009). Changes in racial/ethnic disparities in the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes by obesity level among US adults. Ethnicity & Health, 14(5): 439-457.
Purpose of the study:
This study aimed to analyze the relationship how ethnic minority status and obesity affected type II diabetes among adults in the United States.
Participants in the study
The study was carried out among 49,574 adults between the ages of twenty and seventy four.
Methods of data collection
Data was collected through surveys that had been conducted by the National Health and Nutritional Examination Surveys (NHANES) between the years 1974 and 2004.
Was an intervention tested?
Yes…… No…X…
If yes, answer the following two questions

How was the sample size determined
Were patients randomly assigned to treatment groups

Yes ……. No………Not sure ……….
What were the findings?
The trends in racial or ethnic disparities in respect to the prevalence of type II diabetes indicated variations by BMI.
Credibility
Is the study published in a source that required peer review?
Yes …X…. No……… Not sure ……….
Was the design used appropriate to the research questions?
Yes …X…. No……… Not sure ……….
The study aimed at establishing how ethnic minority status and obesity affected the type II obesity. Therefore, the survey design was the best for this study.
Did the data obtained and the analyses conducted answer the research questions?
Yes…X….. No……… Some but not others……
The data collected was suitable for the study.
Was there anything about the way the participants were chosen or their characteristics that could have influenced the findings?
Yes…… No…X…..
Were the measuring instruments valid and reliable?
Yes…X… No……..
In measuring the glucose level, the America’s Diabetes Association criterion was used. This was chosen over the Oral Glucose Tolerance Test, which is known to be inconsistent.
Were important extraneous variables and bias controlled?
Yes…X… No……
The logistic regression controlling was used for age, gender, and education while estimating the odds of type II diabetes across the study groups.
Was there anything about the way the study was done that could have influenced the findings?
Yes…… No…X…
If an intervention was tested, answer the following questions:

Were participants randomly assigned to groups and were the two groups similar at the start (before an intervention)?

Yes……. No…….. Can’t be sure……..

Were the interventions well defined and consistently delivered?

Yes……. No……..

Were the groups treated equally other than the difference in the intervention?

Yes……. No…….. Can’t be sure……..

If no difference was found, was the sample size large enough to find a difference, if one existed?

Yes……. No…….. Not sure…….

If a difference was found, are you confident that it was due to differences in the intervention?

Yes……. No…….
Is each finding consistent with or different from previous findings in this area of study?
Yes…X…. No…….. Can’t be sure…….
Most studies have found out that diabetes in ethnic minority group is relatively higher than the general population.
FOR EACH MAIN FINDING, IS IT CREDIBLE?
Yes…X…. No……..
Critical Significance
Note any difference in, r2s, or measures of clinical effect (ABI, NNT, RR, OR).
Is the frequency, association, or treatment effect impressive enough to be confident that the finding would make a clinical difference if used as a basis for a care protocol?
Yes…X…. No…….
IS THE FINDING CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT
YES…X… NO………

Nursing Research Study from Scotland

Synopsis:Hamer, M., Kengne, A.P., Batty, G.D., Cooke, D. and Stamatakis, E. (2011). Short Report: Epidemiology Temporal trends in diabetes prevalence and key diabetes risk factors in Scotland, 2003–2008. Diabetic Medicine, 28: 595-598.
Purpose of the study
The study was aimed at assessing temporal trends in diabetes prevalence and critical risk factors of the disease.
Participants in the study
The study had two groups of participants including 7229 from 2003 and 6313 from 2008 national surveys.
Methods of data collection
Survey methodology was used in collecting data
Was an intervention tested?
Yes…… No…X…
If yes, answer the following two questions

How was the sample size determined
Were patients randomly assigned to treatment groups

Yes ……. No……… Not sure ……….
What were the findings?
There has been an increase in the prevalence of diabetes between the years 2003 and 2008. The increase was significant among those aged 65 and above.
Credibility
Is the study published in a source that required peer review?
Yes …X…. No……… Not sure ……….
Was the design used appropriate to the research questions?
Yes …X…. No……… Not sure ……….
Did the data obtained and the analyses conducted answer the research questions?
Yes…X… No……… Some but not others……
Was there anything about the way the participants were chosen or their characteristics that could have influenced the findings?
Yes…… No…X…..
Were the measuring instruments valid and reliable?
Yes…X… No……..
Were important extraneous variables and bias controlled?
Yes…… No…X…
Was there anything about the way the study was done that could have influenced the findings?
Yes….. No…X…
If an intervention was tested, answer the following questions:

Were participants randomly assigned to groups and were the two groups similar at the start (before an intervention)?

Yes……. No…….. Can’t be sure……..

Were the interventions well defined and consistently delivered?

Yes……. No……..

Were the groups treated equally other than the difference in the intervention?

Yes……. No…….. Can’t be sure……..

If no difference was found, was the sample size large enough to find a difference, if one existed?

Yes……. No…….. Not sure…….

If a difference was found, are you confident that it was due to differences in the intervention?

Yes……. No…….
Is each finding consistent with or different from previous findings in this area of study?
Yes…X…. No…….. Can’t be sure…….
FOR EACH MAIN FINDING, IS IT CREDIBLE?
Yes…X… No……..
Critical Significance
Note any difference in, r2s, or measures of clinical effect (ABI, NNT, RR, OR).
Is the frequency, association, or treatment effect impressive enough to be confident that the finding would make a clinical difference if used as a basis for a care protocol?
Yes…X…. No…….
IS THE FINDING CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT
YES…X… NO………

Nursing Research Study from the USA

Synopsis:Oza-Frank, R. and Narayan, K.M.V. (2010). Overweight and Diabetes Prevalence Among US Immigrants. American Journal of Public Health, 100(4): 661-668.
Purpose of the study
The main aim of the study was to identify the prevalence of overweight and diabetes among the immigrant population in the US by region of origin.
Participants in the study
There were 34456 participants took part in the study.
Methods of data collection
Survey method was used for data collection
Was an intervention tested?
Yes…… No…X…
If yes, answer the following two questions

How was the sample size determined
Were patients randomly assigned to treatment groups

Yes ……. No……… Not sure ……….
What were the findings?
It was established that immigrants from the Indian subcontinent were greatly at risk of having diabetes compared to those from Europe without a corresponding increased risk of being overweight. Also, the immigrants from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean were at great risk of being overweight and diabetic compared to those from Europe.
Credibility
Is the study published in a source that required peer review?
Yes …X… No……… Not sure ……….
Was the design used appropriate to the research questions?
Yes …X…. No……… Not sure ……….
Did the data obtained and the analyses conducted answer the research questions?
Yes…X….. No……… Some but not others……
Was there anything about the way the participants were chosen or their characteristics that could have influenced the findings?
Yes…… No…X…..
Were the measuring instruments valid and reliable?
Yes…X… No……..
Were important extraneous variables and bias controlled?
Yes…X… No……
Was there anything about the way the study was done that could have influenced the findings?
Yes….. No…X…
If an intervention was tested, answer the following questions:

Were participants randomly assigned to groups and were the two groups similar at the start (before an intervention)?

Yes……. No…….. Can’t be sure……..

Were the interventions well defined and consistently delivered?

Yes……. No……..

Were the groups treated equally other than the difference in the intervention?

Yes……. No…….. Can’t be sure……..

If no difference was found, was the sample size large enough to find a difference, if one existed?

Yes……. No…….. Not sure…….

If a difference was found, are you confident that it was due to differences in the intervention?

Yes……. No…….
Is each finding consistent with or different from previous findings in this area of study?
Yes…X…. No…….. Can’t be sure…….
FOR EACH MAIN FINDING, IS IT CREDIBLE?
Yes…X…. No……..
Critical Significance
Note any difference in, r2s, or measures of clinical effect (ABI, NNT, RR, OR).
Is the frequency, association, or treatment effect impressive enough to be confident that the finding would make a clinical difference if used as a basis for a care protocol?
Yes…X…. No…….
IS THE FINDING CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT
YES…X… NO………

Nursing Research Study from

Synopsis:Taloyan, M., et al. (2010). Poor self-rated health in adult patients with type 2 diabetes in the town of Södertälje: A cross-sectional study. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 28: 216–220.
Purpose of the study
 
Participants in the study
 
Methods of data collection
 
Was an intervention tested?
Yes…… No……
If yes, answer the following two questions

How was the sample size determined
Were patients randomly assigned to treatment groups

Yes ……. No……… Not sure ……….
What were the findings?
Credibility
Is the study published in a source that required peer review?
Yes ……. No……… Not sure ……….
Was the design used appropriate to the research questions?
Yes ……. No……… Not sure ……….
Did the data obtained and the analyses conducted answer the research questions?
Yes…….. No……… Some but not others……
Was there anything about the way the participants were chosen or their characteristics that could have influenced the findings?
Yes…… No……..
Were the measuring instruments valid and reliable?
Yes…… No……..
Were important extraneous variables and bias controlled?
Yes….. No……
Was there anything about the way the study was done that could have influenced the findings?
Yes….. No…..
If an intervention was tested, answer the following questions:

Were participants randomly assigned to groups and were the two groups similar at the start (before an intervention)?

Yes……. No…….. Can’t be sure……..

Were the interventions well defined and consistently delivered?

Yes……. No……..

Were the groups treated equally other than the difference in the intervention?

Yes……. No…….. Can’t be sure……..

If no difference was found, was the sample size large enough to find a difference, if one existed?

Yes……. No…….. Not sure…….

If a difference was found, are you confident that it was due to differences in the intervention?

Yes……. No…….
Is each finding consistent with or different from previous findings in this area of study?
Yes……. No…….. Can’t be sure…….
FOR EACH MAIN FINDING, IS IT CREDIBLE?
Yes……. No……..
Critical Significance
Note any difference in, r2s, or measures of clinical effect (ABI, NNT, RR, OR).
Is the frequency, association, or treatment effect impressive enough to be confident that the finding would make a clinical difference if used as a basis for a care protocol?
Yes……. No…….
IS THE FINDING CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT
YES…… NO………
Part C
Conclusion
 
References
Radia, H. (2009). Prevalence and incidence of diabetes increased in the UK over 10 years. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 15:24
Gakidou, E, et al. (2011). Management of diabetes and associated cardiovascular risk factors in seven countries: a comparison of data from national health examination surveys. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 89(3): 172-183.


Instant Quote

Subject:
Type:
Pages/Words:
Single spaced
approx 275 words per page
Urgency (Less urgent, less costly):
Level:
Currency:
Total Cost: NaN

Get 10% Off on your 1st order!