534352551720755343525619188553435257373620Evidence Level and Quality: <\/p>\n
Article Title:<\/p>\n
Improving the Metabolic and Mental Health of Children with Obesity: A School-Based Nutrition Education and Physical Activity Intervention in Wuhan Number: nu12010194<\/p>\n
Author(s): Hong-jie Yu 1, Fang Li 2, Yong-feng Hu 3, Chang-feng Li 2, Shuai Yuan 4 , Yong Song 1,<\/p>\n
Miaobing Zheng 5, Jie Gong 2 and Qi-qiang He 1,6,*Publication Date: 10 January 2020<\/p>\n
Journal: Nutrients <\/p>\n
Setting: Wuhan, China<\/p>\n
Sample 1340 students in<\/p>\n
the third and fourth grades.<\/p>\n
Does this evidence address my EBP question? Yes No<\/p>\n
Do not proceed with appraisal of this evidence<\/p>\n
Level of Evidence (Study Design)<\/p>\n
A. Is this a report of a single research study? If No, go to B. Yes No<\/p>\n
Was there manipulation of an independent variable?<\/p>\n
Was there a control group?<\/p>\n
Were study participants randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups? Yes<\/p>\n
Yes No<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
Yes No<\/p>\n
If Yes to all three, this is a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) or Experimental Study LEVEL I If Yes to #1 and #2 and No to #3, OR Yes to #1 and No to #2 and #3, this is Quasi Experimental (some degree of investigator control, some manipulation of<\/p>\n
an independent variable, lacks random assignment to groups, may have a control group) LEVEL II If No to #1, #2, and #3, this is Non-Experimental (no manipulation of independent variable, can be descriptive, comparative, or correlational, often uses secondary data) or Qualitative (exploratory in nature such as interviews or focus groups, a starting point for studies for which little research currently exists, has small<\/p>\n
sample sizes, may use results to design empirical studies) LEVEL III NEXT, COMPLETE THE BOTTOM SECTION ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE, \u201cSTUDY FINDINGS THAT HELP YOU ANSWER THE EBP QUESTION\u201d 53232053658235532447540633655314950451294553244754809490<\/p>\n
Is this a summary of multiple research studies? If No, go to Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Form.<\/p>\n
Does it employ a comprehensive search strategy and rigorous appraisal method (Systematic Review)? If No, use Non-Research Evidence Appraisal Tool; if Yes:<\/p>\n
Does it combine and analyze results from the studies to generate a new statistic (effect size)? (Systematic review with meta-analysis)<\/p>\n
Does it analyze and synthesize concepts from qualitative studies? (Systematic review with meta-synthesis)<\/p>\n
If Yes to either a or b, go to #2B below.<\/p>\n
For Systematic Reviews and Systematic Reviews with meta-analysis or meta- synthesis:<\/p>\n
Are all studies included RCTs?<\/p>\n
Are the studies a combination of RCTs and quasi-experimental or quasi-experimental only?<\/p>\n
Are the studies a combination of RCTs, quasi-experimental and non-experimental or non-experimental only?<\/p>\n
Are any or all of the included studies qualitative?<\/p>\n
COMPLETE THE NEXT SECTION, \u201cSTUDY FINDINGS THAT HELP YOU ANSWER THE EBP QUESTION\u201d LEVEL I<\/p>\n
LEVEL II<\/p>\n
LEVEL IIlLEVEL IIlYes<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
Yes<\/p>\n
Yes No<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
No<\/p>\n
STUDY FINDINGS THAT HELP YOU ANSWER THE EBP QUESTION:<\/p>\n
The methods used in this article adequately adhered to the rules and policies of medical research practice. The study’s findings indicated that although most children studied had higher heights, there was no significant difference in sex ratio, age, weight, and household income level between the two selected groups. <\/p>\n
NOW COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGE, \u201cQUALITY APPRAISAL OF RESEARCH STUDIES\u201d, AND ASSIGN A QUALITY SCORE TO YOUR ARTICLE<\/p>\n
Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Appendix E: Research Evidence Appraisal Tool<\/p>\n
Quality Appraisal of Research Studies<\/p>\n
Does the researcher identify what is known and not known about the problem and how the study will address any gaps in knowledge?<\/p>\n
Was the purpose of the study clearly presented?<\/p>\n
Was the literature review current (most sources within last 5 years or classic)?<\/p>\n
Was sample size sufficient based on study design and rationale?<\/p>\n
If there is a control group:<\/p>\n
Were the characteristics and\/or demographics similar in both the control and intervention groups?<\/p>\n
If multiple settings were used, were the settings similar?<\/p>\n
Were all groups equally treated except for the intervention group(s)?<\/p>\n
Are data collection methods described clearly?<\/p>\n
Were the instruments reliable (Cronbach’s \u03b1 [alpha] > 0.70)?<\/p>\n
Was instrument validity discussed?<\/p>\n
If surveys\/questionnaires were used, was the response rate > 25%?<\/p>\n
Were the results presented clearly?<\/p>\n
If tables were presented, was the narrative consistent with the table content?<\/p>\n
Were study limitations identified and addressed?<\/p>\n
Were conclusions based on results? \uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3NA<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3NA<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3NA<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3NA<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3NA<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3NA<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3NA<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No \uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No Quality Appraisal of Systematic Review with or without Meta-Analysis or Meta-Synthesis<\/p>\n
Was the purpose of the systematic review clearly stated?<\/p>\n
Were reports comprehensive, with reproducible search strategy?<\/p>\n
Key search terms stated<\/p>\n
Multiple databases searched and identified<\/p>\n
Inclusion and exclusion criteria stated<\/p>\n
Was there a flow diagram showing the number of studies eliminated at each level of review?<\/p>\n
Were details of included studies presented (design, sample, methods, results, outcomes, strengths and limitations)?<\/p>\n
Were methods for appraising the strength of evidence (level and quality) described?<\/p>\n
Were conclusions based on results?<\/p>\n
Results were interpreted<\/p>\n
Conclusions flowed logically from the interpretation and systematic review question<\/p>\n
Did the systematic review include both a section addressing limitations and how they were addressed? \uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
\uf0a3Yes \uf0a3No<\/p>\n
QUALITY RATING BASED ON QUALITY APPRAISAL<\/p>\n
High quality: consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for the study design; adequate control; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that includes thorough reference to scientific evidence<\/p>\n
Good quality: reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for the study design; some control, and fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence<\/p>\n
Low quality or major flaws: little evidence with inconsistent results; insufficient sample size for the study design; conclusions cannot be drawn<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
534352551720755343525619188553435257373620Evidence Level and Quality: Article Title: Improving the Metabolic and Mental Health of Children with Obesity: A School-Based Nutrition Education<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n