In your peer responses explain why you agree or disagree with the study design a

In your peer responses explain why you agree or disagree with the study design
and approach that they chose and offer a different perspective (if possible) as
to how they may have benefited from using another type of study design or asking
a different research question. must be in APA 6th edition. and must use one scholarly reference.Spinal Cord Injuries from
Recreational SportsSpinal Cord Injuries from
Recreational Sports Spinal cord injuries are
amongst those that participate in recreational sports can be prevented through
state funded initiatives such as sports safety commercials and state monitored
participant safety gear requirements. If provided funding to perform a pilot
program study I would conduct a community trial as an effort to prove that each
state possess the potential to decrease and prevent morbidity and mortality
associated with spinal cord injuries caused by recreational sports. I would
start my study by first reviewing the literature associated with current or
past initiatives with the same goal. Secondly I would create a non-complex
hypothesis statement. Lastly I would elaborate on all of the limitations
strengths and weaknesses of the study design.Community Trials as
InterventionsCommunity Trials are initiated by
identifying potential communities for trial participation. These communities
will be handpicked based on a high incidence rate for spinal cord injuries as a
result of recreational sports and would additionally be monitored for
prevalence of spinal cord injuries in a particular sub-set of the
population. With required blessings from the designated officials that oversee
the communities the following proposal would be presented for study format
would be presented for the review. As provided by Friis & Sellars (2009) a
schematic diagram of a community trial as an intervention for spinal cord
injuries caused by recreational sports would include the following: 1.) Population (a) and
(b)2.) Observation of Injury
Incidence/Specified Time3.) Distribute Randomized
Interventions4.) Measure the Outcomes for both
groups that received the intervention and those that did not.Pilot Program Grant
PropositionPurposeTo provide community level safety
interventions for spinal cord injuries due to recreational sport activities. HypothesisWill the rate of spinal cord injury
incidence decrease for populations that have prevention programs in
place?Methods (Solomon Four-Group
Assignment)For
exactly 24 months I would measure the outcomes for communities that have been
provided an intervention for safer recreational sports participation. After
selecting four communities that have a consistent or high rate for spinal cord
injuries over the last 2 years I would select two of these communities to
integrate community sensitive safety intervention programs.OutcomesThe outcomes would measured by
contrasting an decrease increase or stagnation for the rate of incidence for
spinal cord injuryLimitationsExpected strengths and weaknesses of
the study would be the consistent and inconsistent reporting of spinal cord
injuries as a result of recreational sports participation from local acute care
settings and hospital emergency departments. In addition additional support
from the local school system and state officials would be required for success. Public Health
ApplicationsIt is well documented that Community
Trials as Interventions are successful as indicators for the need for
legislation change or ongoing public health awareness initiatives. According to
Pless (2000) the occurrence of spinal cord injuries were increasing annually
with hockey season. Pleas for government interventions for safety requirement
were requested as generalized recommendations for safer recreational
interactions. These pleas were not aggressively pursued in that hockey has is
sports that is well liked by Canadian (Pless 2000). The United States alone
reports that at least 50 million injuries and 180 000 fatalities. These
injuries are inclusive of spinal cord injuries and associated with at least a
$400 billion. As an effort to exist as proactive residents against the
unnecessary occurrence of spinal cord injuries due to recreational activity
participation we must demand injury prevention resources from our local health
department. By doing so we are able to benefit from the utilization of the
recommended public health approach of surveillance risk potential and
protective measure identification create and test control strategies and
structured promotion of control strategies (Jesada Kohn Stier & Thrombley
2012).ReferencesFriis R. H. & Sellers T. A.
(2009). Epidemiology for public health practices (4th ed.). Sudbury Mass: Jones
and Bartlett Publishers.Jesada R. A. Kohn M. A. Stier D.
D. & Thombley M. L. (2012). The Status of Legal Authority for Injury
Prevention Practice in State Health Departments. American Journal of Public
Health 102Pless I. B. (2000). Preventing
spinal cord injuries: Is this the best we can do? Canadian Medical Association
Journal 162(6) 792-3. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/204809730?accountid=8289 (6): 1067-76.