University of Alberta

Course Guide for SPH 604 Fall Term, 2016 (Campus Delivery)





Advanced Theory and Methods in Public Health

Mondays, 9 – 10:50 am ECHA 1-457

Instructor:



Cameron Wild, PhD Phone: 780.492.6752 Email: [email protected] Office: ECHA 3-277 Office hours: By appointment



SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



1

Course Description This is a core course in the PhD curriculum in the School of Public Health. It emphasizes methodological and theoretical issues in the justification, design, and execution of public health research. Students will discuss key concepts, principles, and approaches used in research projects and research programs designed to inform and improve the health of the public. The overall intent of SPH 604 is to encourage students to (a) develop a scholarly outlook, (b) engage in critical thinking about public health research methods and theory, (c) develop appreciation for the varied disciplinary approaches that inform public health research, and (d) cultivate a commitment to effective knowledge exchange with other scholars and non-academic public health stakeholders. The course consists of weekly 2-hour sessions (combination of lecture and discussion).

Objectives Upon completion of this course, students will be able to: 1. Understand and discuss how research contributes to supporting and improving core public health functions. 2. Understand principles of knowledge generation and translation across the diverse disciplinary traditions that inform public health research. 3. Recognize the importance of matching research methods to important public health issues, and the implications of this for study design and analysis. 4. Understand the importance of engagement with non-academic stakeholders for being an effective public health researcher.

Competencies

A. Basics of Public Health

Public Health Concepts and Issues • (Define, and apply appropriately), key concepts related to public health and public health research • (Identify) historical, current, and emerging public health issues, nationally and globally • (Describe) the determinants of health and the pathways through which they impact individual and community health • (Specify) multiple targets and levels of intervention for public health programs and policies • (Describe) key concepts related to health equity / inequity Health Systems and Health Policy • (Describe) key institutional contexts of public health research outside academia • (Describe) the cycle of policy development, from issues identification to policy evaluation • (Describe) information needs for health services and health policy development, including scientific evidence and other important inputs • (Discuss) the important elements of policy-relevant research



SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



2

B. Knowledge Generation and Translation

Epistemology (Ways of Knowing) • (Identify) paradigms and methodologies for inquiry into public health issues, differences between them, and how they may lead to differing questions and approaches • (Match) research questions with appropriate study designs, methodologies, and research approaches • (Demonstrate) how to frame a public health issue, define problems and clarify issues, and integrate relevant data with a critical interpretive lens based on presenting issue, context, and resources • (Define) critical research concepts that are used from the range of disciplines and methods that contribute to public health • (Interpret) key concepts of health and their implications for health research Knowledge Generation • (Describe) a range of knowledge generating activities in public health research, along with strengths and limitations and appropriate use of each; • (Identify and describe) a range of study designs, including the advantages and disadvantages of each; • (Select and apply) appropriate methods to specific health and health care issues, including selection and implementation of a sampling strategy; • (Identify and communicate) potential and /or common pitfalls in using various research methods and statistical analysis; • (Critically evaluate and synthesize) relevant scientific literature, integrating it appropriate with contextual information Knowledge Translation / Utilization • (Describe) the key concepts and principles of knowledge mobilization and knowledge translation theory, and the importance of this concept to public health

C. Professional and Leadership Skills

Self-management • (Demonstrate) self-awareness and take responsibility for own performance (time management, oral presentation, scientific and plain language writing) Engagement • (Understand) the essential elements, principles and strategies for creating effective partnerships for research; • (Demonstrate ability) to develop inclusive and respectful collaboration with those of diverse backgrounds; • (Identify) importance of effective working relationships through professional networks

Learning Resources

All required readings are made available through persistent links to electronic versions of each article via the U of A Library. These links are found in the reading list of this syllabus (see ‘Weekly Schedule and Readings’, following pages). Readings and copies of lecture notes may also be made available through SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



3

E-Class.

SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



4

Libraries The University of Alberta library system’s website (www.library.ualberta.ca) details the range of services offered to students on and off campus. If you need further information or assistance, contact the Library's Electronic Reference Desk at www.library.ualberta.ca/ereference/index.cfm or call 1-800-2070172.

Course Format This is a seminar and requires that students come prepared for each class, having completed all readings prior to the seminar session. Students are expected to actively participate in generating and pursuing discussion of issues. Attendance is expected. Students will rotate through a series of weekly presentations on the required readings. Students will also be asked to submit written summaries and critical analyses of key readings.

Course Evaluation Mid-point evaluation. As is the case with all SPH instructors, I am interested in improving the course. I need to hear from you in order to do that well. I will gather feedback and recommendations from you at about the mid-point of the course, by asking everyone to participate in an anonymous survey on eClass. Final course evaluation. Following completion of the course, you will receive a standardized summative evaluation. Course evaluations will be done online by Test Scoring and Questionnaire Services. An invitation to participate in the survey is emailed to each student. One email will be sent for each start date, i.e., if a student has surveys with different start dates, they will receive multiple messages. Note that the message includes a login button.

SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



5

Course Evaluation and Marking Criteria 1. Class Participation 2. Annotated Summaries of Course Readings

40% 60%

1. Class Participation (40% of your grade, assessed throughout the term)

During the first seminar (September 12), I will outline class participation and discussion responsibilities for the semester. Class participation will be assessed in two ways. First, 10% of this course component will be allocated to general participation in seminar discussion throughout the term. Both quality and quantity of participation will be evaluated. Second, 30% of this course component will be allocated to presentation readings, as described below. You are responsible for completing all assigned readings (including presentation readings) in advance of each class. You can anticipate reading ~30 to 50 pages of material each week through the term. All readings address key objectives of the course and will be discussed by the entire class each week. The reading list for the course contains several types of required readings, including presentation readings (see ‘Weekly Schedule and Readings’, following pages). Presentation readings are marked with an asterisk (*) on the reading list. They are articles dealing with key methodological and theoretical issues in public health research. Each student in the seminar will take responsibility for facilitating a class discussion of one presentation reading about 3 times during the semester. Presentation readings will be selected by students on September 12. On days that you are responsible for a presentation reading, you should prepare a very short (5 minutes or less) overview of the reading to be presented in the seminar. After this, you will lead a class discussion (~20 minutes). Because everyone will have read the presentation readings for that week, prepare notes and discussion materials that foster critical class engagement with the issues in the presentation reading, rather than re-stating the authors’ arguments or results. Areas that you might want to focus class discussion on include (but are not limited to): quality of the author’s arguments, her or his grounding in the literature, further conceptual or research questions raised by the article, connections to other theories or methodologies that you are aware of, implications for public health practice, or how the article fits into the course objectives. You can use aids (e.g., Powerpoint slides) to facilitate discussion if you like; your choice. Student performance in summarizing and facilitating discussion of presentation readings will be graded by the instructor and will count toward your total presentation reading mark for the term. Specifically, for each presentation reading session, the instructor will assess your performance using the following 4 captions: (1) How accurately did you summarize key elements of the article?, (2) How well did you raise critical discussion points for the seminar to react to?, (3) How well did you facilitate discussion among seminar members?, and (4) Overall impression. Each of these captions will be rated on a 5-point scale (poor, mediocre, acceptable, very good, excellent) to yield a 20 point possible score. In addition, the entire class will provide anonymous feedback to the student on each presentation reading (no grading implications, just peer feedback on how you did). Tips on how to effectively lead a class discussion can be found here: http://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/history/study/leaddiscussion/ SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



6

2. Annotated Summaries of Course Readings (60% of your grade, due throughout the term)

The reading list for the course also contains five (5) annotation readings. You are also responsible for completing annotation readings in advance of each class and for submitting an annotated summary at the beginning of the class. Type your summary into the form templates located at the end of this syllabus. Three of the annotation readings are marked with this symbol ►; you are responsible for submitting an annotated summary for all 3 of them. In addition, choose 2 additional annotated summaries to submit from any of the other references on the reading list (see ‘Weekly Schedule and Readings’, following pages). Each of the 5 annotated summaries will be worth 12% of your course grade, for a total of 60% of your final mark. An annotation, according to the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, "is a succinct explanation or description of a particular item [...] Its purpose is to guide the reader to material worth his time, to warn him of works better left to gather dust." Annotation is a research tool to assist you in synthesizing and reviewing your sources. It allows someone unfamiliar with a source to quickly get a sense of what the source is about, its arguments, and its usefulness in research. •

Familiarize yourself with material on how to write annotated bibliographies (see, for example: http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill28.htm)

•

Carefully read the annotation readings assigned for that week

•

Provide a concise, accurate annotation of the reading. Use the forms provided at the end of this syllabus to organize your work. Excluding the cover page, each annotation should be no more than 2 pages in length (singled spaced; or 4 double-spaced pages), and must include both informative and evaluative statements.

•

Informative statements summarize what the content, message, or argument of the source article is. It generally describes the content of the article, without any editorial or evaluative comments about such content. Informative statements generally answer these types of questions: "What are the author's main arguments and/or research questions?”; “What research methods (sample, design, measures, analyses) were used?”; “What analysis strategy was used and what were the main results?”; What conclusions did the author(s) draw?"

•

Evaluative statements critically summarize strengths and weaknesses of the article, and whether the conclusions reached are plausible or not. These statements do not re-state what the author found or argued. Instead, evaluative statements critically appraise the article in a concise form. Evaluative statements also provide editorial information to assist readers (e.g., placing the study in context of other research in this area (e.g., “The first study to test….” “One of a number of similar studies that seems to add little to our understanding…”, etc.).

Each annotated summary will be evaluated in 3 captions: (1) How well did you summarize key elements of the article?, (2) How well did you raise critical issues in relation to the article?, and (3) Writing (style, grammar, formatting, etc.). Each of these captions will be rated on a 5-point scale (poor, mediocre, acceptable, very good, excellent) to yield a 15 point possible score for each annotated summary. SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



7

Guidelines for Preparing Annotated Summaries Submitting § All assignments must be submitted electronically. Submjt your assignment to [email protected] and provide descriptive information in the subject heading of your email message (e.g., SPH 604 Annotation Reading 2). Typing § Maximum length = 3 pages, excluding cover page and references (see Style, below). § Use a 12-point font size. § Margin size should be minimum of 1 inch (top, bottom, left, right) Style § All annotated summaries should start with a cover or title page, listing the title of the paper, SPH 604, your name, and student ID number. § References should be cited in the text (e.g., Wild, 2014). The end of the paper should include a reference section, starting on a new page, and listing the reference articles cited in the main text. § Use a consistent style throughout the paper. I don’t care if you prefer to adopt the style guidelines of the American Psychological Association (APA), or some other format; just be consistent. § All assignments will be marked on language use, grammar, spelling, paragraph construction in addition to the content. § Judicious use of section and/or subsection headings can often strengthen a paper by highlighting its organization. Use of reference material § This is a graduate-level seminar, so you can feel free to use whatever reference articles you find helpful to make your points, arguments, and conclusions. This can include articles and materials used in the course, supplemental readings, or other materials you have discovered on your own initiative. General advice § You are not required to submit 3 full pages. Use your good judgment by writing the paper in sufficient length to address the topic(s) and question(s) asked, within the overall page limit. Remember, too little information can be a problem, as can too much information, or redundant information. § Strive for clear, well-constructed writing that communicates your thoughts directly. Simplify your sentences whenever possible. Take credit by using active voice. Policy on late assignments If you submit a late assignment, you will be penalized 5% of the total mark per day late

SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



8

Calculating Your Final Term Mark Each component of the course evaluation (i.e., class participation, annotated summaries) will be converted to a total mark out of 100. At the end of the term, I will compute a weighted term mark for SPH 604 out of 100, taking into account the weights for each course evaluation component.

Calculating Your Final Course Grade Your final course mark out of 100 will then be converted to a mock course grade using the University of Alberta Grading System described below. The mock letter grade is designed to give students feedback on the overall quality of their work in the course. All students who receive a mock grade of C+ or greater will be assigned a final grade of “Pass” for this course, which is currently graded on a pass/fail basis. Please contact me if you have any questions about grading procedures for the course.

Grading The University of Alberta uses a letter grading system with a four-point scale of numerical equivalents for calculating grade point averages. Grades reflect judgments of student achievement made by instructors. These judgments are based on a combination of absolute achievement and relative performance in a class. Some instructors assign grades as intervals during the course and others assign marks (e.g. percentages) throughout the term and then assign a letter grade at the end. Instructors must adapt their approaches to reflect the letter grading system. Grade distribution should reflect those shown in this document. The University of Alberta Grading System is described in the University of Alberta Calendar, Section 23.4, Regulations and Information for Students Evaluation Procedures and Grading System. As required by U of A for Graduate Courses, we will use the following Descriptors and Letter Grades: Grading in Graduate Courses Descriptor Letter Grade Grade Point Value

Excellent

Good Satisfactory Failure

4.0 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.0

A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D F

SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



9

Academic Integrity Plagiarism is a serious offence. The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (online at www.ualberta.ca/CodeofStudentBehaviour) and avoid any behaviour which could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University.

SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



10

Course Overview & Important Dates Date September 12 September 19 September 26 October 3 October 10 October 17 October 24 October 31 November 7 November 14 November 21 November 28 December 5

Topic Historical and institutional contexts of public health research Methodological pluralism: Philosophical and pragmatic issues “Evidence” and the importance of theory ► First mandatory annotated summary due Research questions and research design: Big picture issues No seminar – Happy Thanksgiving Measurement matters Descriptive, relational, and causal-etiologic research questions ► Second mandatory annotated summary due Causal-intervention research questions No seminar – Fall Reading Week Common analytic problems (1): Quantitative studies Common analytic problems (2): Qualitative studies Emerging issues in academic publishing and the conduct of research Influencing non-academic agendas ► Third mandatory annotated summary due

Note: Two additional annotated summaries are required. These are to be chosen from the reading list according to students’ interests.

SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



11

Weekly Schedule and Readings

References marked with an asterisk (*) are presentation readings. References marked with this symbol ►are mandatory annotation readings; you must submit 3 annotated summaries, one for each reading marked with this symbol. In addition, choose 2 additional annotated summaries to submit from any of the other references on the reading list. All annotated summaries (i.e., 3 mandatory ones and 2 of your choice) are due at 9 am on the day they will be discussed in the seminar. Make sure that you arrive at the seminar on September 12 having completed the required readings for the first week, and be prepared to engage in discussion.

September 12 Historical and institutional contexts of public health research

Borak, J. (2010). Five classic articles in public health. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 83, 43-45. http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/pmc/articles/PMC2844692/ Holland, W.W. (1981). The organization and funding of research into public health. Journal of Public Health Policy, 2(4), 354-360. http://www.palgravejournals.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/jphp/journal/v2/n4/abs/jphp198141a.html Pernick, M.S. (1997). Eugenics and public health in American history. American Journal of Public Health, 87(11), 1767-1772. http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/pmc/articles/PMC1381159/ Green, L.W., & Mercer, S.L. (2001). Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities? American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1926-1929. http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/pmc/articles/PMC1446906/ Jansen, M.W.J., Oers, H.A.M., & de Vries, N.K. (2010). Public health: Disconnections between policy, practice, and research. Health Research Policy and Systems, 8, 37. http://www.health-policy-systems.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/content/8/1/37

September 19 Methodological pluralism: Philosophical and pragmatic issues Weed, D.L. (1999). Towards a philosophy of public health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 53, 99-104. http://jech.bmj.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/content/53/2/99.long SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



12

Brownson, R.C., Fielding, J.E., & Maylahn, C.M. (2009). Evidence-based public health: A fundamental concept for public health practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 175-201. http://www.annualreviews.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.0 31308.100134 *Popay, J., & Williams, G. (1996). Public health research and lay knowledge. Social Science & Medicine, 42(5), 759-768. http://tinyurl.com/hq8ptr7 *Glasgow, R.E. (2008). What types of evidence are most needed to advance behavioral medicine? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 19-25. http://link.springer.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/article/10.1007%2Fs12160-007-9008-5

September 26 “Evidence” and the importance of theory (Guest Professor: Dr. Candace Nykiforuk)

Weed, D.L. (2001). Theory and practice in epidemiology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 954, 52-62. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/10.1111/j.17496632.2001.tb02746.x/abstract Krieger, N., & Zierler, S. (1996). What explains the public’s health? A call for epidemiologic theory. Epidemiology, 7(1), 107-109. http://www.jstor.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/stable/3702767?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ► Giacomini, M. (2009). Theory-based medicine and the role of evidence: Why the emperor needs new clothes, again. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52(2), 234-251. http://muse.jhu.edu.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/journals/perspectives_in_biology_and_medicine/ v052/52.2.giacomini.html *Petticrew, M., Chalabi, Z., & Jones, D.R. (2012). To RCT or not to RCT: Deciding when ‘more evidence is needed’ for public health policy and practice. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66, 391396. http://jech.bmj.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/content/66/5/391.long *Rehfuess, E.A., & Bartram, J. (2014). Beyond direct impact: Evidence synthesis towards a better understanding of environmental health interventions. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 217, 155-159. http://www.sciencedirect.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/science/article/pii/S1438463913001053 ?np=y



SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



13

October 3 Research questions and research design: Big picture issues (Guest Professor: Dr. Elaine Hyshka)

Ioannidis, J.P.A., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M.A., Khoury, M.J., Macleod, M.R., Moher, D., Schutz, K.F., & Tibshirani, R. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet, 383, 166-175. http://www.sciencedirect.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/science/article/pii/S0140673613622278 Harder, T., Takla, A., Rehfuess, E. et al. (2014). Evidence-based decision making in infectious diseases epidemiology, prevention, and control: Matching research questions to study designs and quality appraisal tools. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 69. http://www.biomedcentral.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/1471-2288/14/69 *Kaplan, G.A.. (2004). What’s wrong with social epidemiology, and how can we make it better? Epidemiologic Reviews, 26, 124-135. http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/content/26/1/124.full.pdf+html *Khoury, M.J. et al. (2013). Transforming epidemiology for 21st century medicine and public health. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention, 22(4), 508-516. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/content/22/4/508.abstract *Daly, J., Willis, K., Small, R., Green, J., Welch, N, Kealy, M., & Hughes, E. (2007). A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 43-49. http://www.sciencedirect.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/science/article/pii/S0895435606002101

October 10 No seminar. Happy Thanksgiving!

October 17 Measurement matters

Keszeri, A.P., Novak, M., & Streiner, D.L. (2010). Introduction to health measurement scales. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 68, 319-323. http://www.sciencedirect.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/science/article/pii/S0022399910000115 Vineis, P. (2008). Methodological insights: Fuzzy sets in medicine. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(3), 273-278. http://jech.bmj.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/content/62/3/273.abstract *Whooley, O. (2016). Measuring mental disorders: The failed commensuration project of DSM-V. Social Science & Medicine, 166, 33-40. http://tinyurl.com/guq4ngo SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



14

*Hammersley, M. (2008). Assessing the radical critique of interviews. In Questioning qualitative inquiry. London: Sage (Ch. 5). http://srmo.sagepub.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/view/questioning-qualitative-inquiry/d7.xml *Funk, M.J., & Landi, S.N. (2014). Misclassification in administrative claims data: Quantifying the impact on treatment effect estimates. Current Epidemiologic Reports, 1, 175-185. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40471-014-0027-z

October 24 Descriptive, relational, and causal – etiologic research questions Brotman, D.J., Walker, E., Lauer, M.S., & O’Brien, R.G. (2005). In search of fewer independent risk factors. JAMA Internal Medicine, 165, 138-145. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/article.aspx?articleid=486377 Oaks, J.M., & Kaufmann, J.S. (2006). Introduction: Advancing methods in social epidemiology. In J.M. Oaks & J.S. Kaufmann (eds.), Methods in social epidemiology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (pp. 3-20).

► Burdette, A.M., & Hill, T.D. (2008). An examination of processes linking perceived neighborhood disorder and obesity. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 38-46. http://www.sciencedirect.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/science/article/pii/S0277953608001639 *Galea, S., & Ahern, J. (2006). Invited commentary: Considerations about specificity of associations, causal pathways, and heterogeneity in multilevel thinking. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163(12), 1079-1082. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/content/163/12/1079.extract *Starks, H., & Trinidad, S.B. (2007). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1372-1380. http://qhr.sagepub.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/content/17/10/1372.abstract

October 31 Causal – intervention research questions

Rose, G. (1985). Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology, 14(1), 3238. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/content/14/1/32.abstract

SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



15

Frohlich, K.L., & Potvin, L. (2008). The inequality paradox: The population approach and vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health, 98(2), 216-221. http://ajph.aphapublications.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2007.114777 *Flay, B.R., Biglan, A., Buruch, R.F., Castros, F.G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., Moscici, E.K.,Schinke, S., Valientie, J.C., & Ji, P. (2005). Standards of evidence criteria for efficacy, effectiveness, and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151-175. http://link.springer.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/journal/11121/6/3/page/1 *Sanson-Fisher, R.W., D’Este, C.A., Carey, M.L., Noble, N., & Paul, C.L. (2014). Evaluation of systems- oriented public health interventions: Alternative research designs. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 9-27. http://www.annualreviews.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-publhealth032013-182445 *Wainer, H. (2014). Visual revelations: Happiness and causal inference. Chance, 27(4), 61-64. http://www-tandfonline-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/full/10.1080/09332480.2014.988972

November 7 No seminar: Enjoy Fall Reading Week!

November 14 Common analytic problems (1): Quantitative studies

Rodgers, J.L. (2010). The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modelling: A quiet methodological revolution. American Psychologist, 65(1), 1-12. http://tinyurl.com/pt9zby4 Cummings, G. (2013). The new statistics: A how-to guide. Australian Psychologist, 48, 161-170. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/10.1111/ap.12018/abstract *Sterne, J.A., & Smith, G.D. (2001). Sifting the evidence: What’s wrong with significance tests? British Medical Journal, 322, 226-231. http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/pmc/articles/PMC1119478/ *Bosker, T., Mudge, J.F., & Munkittrick, K.R. (2013). Statistical reporting deficiencies in environmental toxicology. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 32(8), 1737-1739. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/10.1002/etc.2226/epdf *Tressoldi, P.E., Giofre, D., Sella, F., & Cumminbg, G. (2013). High impact = high statistical standards? Not necessarily so. PLOS One, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056180 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056180



SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



16

November 21 Common analytic problems (2): Qualitative studies

Chenail, R.J. (2012). Conducting qualitative data analysis: Reading line-by-line, but analysing by meaningful qualitative units. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 266-269. http://nsuworks.nova.edu.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/tqr/vol17/iss1/12/ Chenail, R.J. (2012). Conducting qualitative data analysis: Qualitative data analysis as a metaphoric process. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 248-253. http://nsuworks.nova.edu.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/tqr/vol17/iss1/13/ *Giacomini, M.K., & Cook, D.J. (2000). Users’ guides to the medical literature XXIII. Qualitative research in health care A. Are the result of the study valid? JAMA, 284, 357-362. http://jama.jamanetwork.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/article.aspx?articleid=192895 *Peters, G.Y., Kok, G., & Schallma, H.P. (2008). Careers in ecstasy use: Do ecstasy users cease of their own accord? Implications for intervention development. BMC Public Health, 8, 376. doi:10.1186/14712458-8-376 http://www.biomedcentral.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/1471-2458/8/376 *Back, AlL., Starks, H., Hsu, C., Gordon, J.R., Bharucha, A., & Pearlman, R.A. (2002). Clinician-patient interactions about requests for physician-assisted suicide: A patient and family view. JAMA Internal Medicine, 162, 1257-1265. http://archinte.jamanetwork.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/article.aspx?articleid=211529

November 28 Emerging issues in academic publishing and the conduct of research

Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2014). How to make more published research true. PLOS Medicine, 11(10), e1001747. OLIMPIA PANTELIMON http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/pmc/articles/PMC4204808/ Mayor, J. (2010). Are scientists nearsighted gamblers? The misleading nature of impact factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 215. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00215. http://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/pmc/articles/PMC3153820/ Ioannidis, J.P.A., Tasioni, A., & Karassa, F.B. (2010). Who is afraid of reviewers’ comments? Or, why anything can be published and anything can be cited. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 40, 285287. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/10.1111/j.13652362.2010.02272.x/abstract *Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. PNAS, 112(2), 360-365. http://www.pnas.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/content/112/2/360.full.pdf SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



17

*Hall, W.D., Mathews, R., & Morley, K.I. (2010). Being more realistic about the public health impact of genomic medicine. PLOS Medicine, 10(7), e1000347. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000347

December 5 Influencing non-academic agendas

*Woolf, S.H., Purnell, J.Q., Simon, S.M., Zimmerman, E.B., Camberos, G.J., Haley, A., & Fields, R.P. (2015). Translating evidence into population health improvement: Strategies and barriers. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 461-482. CLIFF LINDEMAN http://www.annualreviews.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-publhealth082214-110901 Salsberg, J., Parry, D., Pluye, P., Macridis, S., Hebert, C.P., & Macauley, A.C. (2015). Successful strategies to engage research partners for translating evidence into action in community health: A critical review. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. doi: 10.1155/2015/191856 http://www.hindawi.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/journals/jeph/2015/191856/ ► Labonte, R., Polanyi, M., Muhajarine, N., McIntosh, T., & Williams, A. (2005). Beyond the divides: Towards critical population health research. Critical Public Health, 15(1), 5-17. http://www.tandfonline.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/full/10.1080/09581590500048192#a bstract *Lovelace, K.A., Aronson, R.E., Rulison, K.L., Labban, J.D., Shah, G.H., & Smith, M. (2015). Laying the groundwork for evidence-based public health: Why some local health departments use more evidencebased decision-making than others. American Journal of Public Health, 105(Suppl. 2), S189-S197. http://ajph.aphapublications.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302306 *Freudenberg, N., Tsui, E. (2014). Evidence, power, and policy change in community-based participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 104(1), 11-14. http://ajph.aphapublications.org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301471



SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



18

Citation Purpose of Paper Key Arguments Conclusion(s)

SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)

Annotated Summary Form (Nonempirical articles)

Informational Summary

Evaluative Summary



19

Citation



Annotated Summary Form (Empirical articles)

Informational Summary

Purpose of Paper Most important studies mentioned in literature review Research question(s)/hypotheses Design and measures Analytic techniques used Main findings Evaluative Summary

SPH 604 (Fall term, 2016)



20