Full Library Hours
Literature Search: A literature search is a study of information and publications on a specific topic.
Literature Review: a “critical analysis of a segment of a published body of knowledge through summary, classification, and comparison of prior research studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles” (do not confuse this with an annotated bibliography).
Expert Opinion: a person, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person.
A cross-sectional study is an observational one. This means that researchers record information about their subjects without manipulating the study environment. In our study, we would simply measure the cholesterol levels of daily walkers and non-walkers along with any other characteristics that might be of interest to us. We would not influence non-walkers to take up that activity, or advise daily walkers to modify their behaviour. In short, we’d try not to interfere.
The defining feature of a cross-sectional study is that it can compare different population groups at a single point in time. Think of it in terms of taking a snapshot. Findings are drawn from whatever fits into the frame.
To return to our example, we might choose to measure cholesterol levels in daily walkers across two age groups, over 40 and under 40, and compare these to cholesterol levels among non-walkers in the same age groups. We might even create subgroups for gender. However, we would not consider past or future cholesterol levels, for these would fall outside the frame. We would look only at cholesterol levels at one point in time.
The benefit of a cross-sectional study design is that it allows researchers to compare many different variables at the same time. We could, for example, look at age, gender, income and educational level in relation to walking and cholesterol levels, with little or no additional cost.
However, cross-sectional studies may not provide definite information about cause-and-effect relationships. This is because such studies offer a snapshot of a single moment in time; they do not consider what happens before or after the snapshot is taken. Therefore, we can’t know for sure if our daily walkers had low cholesterol levels before taking up their exercise regimes, or if the behaviour of daily walking helped to reduce cholesterol levels that previously were high.
A longitudinal study, like a cross-sectional one, is observational. So, once again, researchers do not interfere with their subjects. However, in a longitudinal study, researchers conduct several observations of the same subjects over a period of time, sometimes lasting many years.
The benefit of a longitudinal study is that researchers are able to detect developments or changes in the characteristics of the target population at both the group and the individual level. The key here is that longitudinal studies extend beyond a single moment in time. As a result, they can establish sequences of events.
To return to our example, we might choose to look at the change in cholesterol levels among women over 40 who walk daily for a period of 20 years. The longitudinal study design would account for cholesterol levels at the onset of a walking regime and as the walking behaviour continued over time. Therefore, a longitudinal study is more likely to suggest cause-and-effect relationships than a cross-sectional study by virtue of its scope.
Here researchers observe the effect of a risk factor, diagnostic test or treatment without trying to influence what happens. Such studies are usually "retrospective" — the data are based on events that have already happened. Most workplace health research falls into this category.
Cohort study: For research purposes, a cohort is any group of people who are linked in some way and followed over time. Researchers observe what happens to one group that's been exposed to a particular variable — for example, the effect of company downsizing on the health of office workers. This group is then compared to a similar group that hasn't been exposed to the variable.
Case control study: Here researchers use existing records to identify people with a certain health problem (“cases”) and a similar group without the problem (“controls”). Example: To learn whether a certain drug causes birth defects, one might collect data about children with defects (cases) and about those without defects (controls). The data are compared to see whether cases are more likely than controls to have mothers who took the drug during pregnancy.
This may be the only way researchers can explore certain questions. For example, it would be unethical to design a randomized controlled trial (see below) deliberately exposing workers to a potentially harmful situation.
The results of observational studies are, by their nature, open to dispute. Example: A cohort study might find that people who meditated regularly were less prone to heart disease than those who didn't. But the link may be explained by the fact that people who meditate also exercise more and follow healthier diets.
Here researchers introduce an intervention and study the effects. Experimental studies are usually randomized, meaning the subjects are grouped by chance. While not all controlled studies are randomized, all randomized trials are controlled.
Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
Eligible people are randomly assigned to two or more groups. One group receives the intervention (such as a new drug) while the control group receives nothing or an inactive placebo. The researchers then study what happens to people in each group. Any difference in outcomes can then be linked to the intervention.
Controlled Clinical Trial (CCT)
This is similar to an RCT, except that subjects are not randomly assigned to the treatment or control groups. This increases the chance for “bias”–that is, that people with similar qualities ended up in each of the groups which could influence the final results.
Some strengths of experimental studies
The RCT is still considered the “gold standard” for producing reliable evidence because little is left to chance.
There's a growing realization that such research is not perfect, and that many questions simply can't be studied using this approach. Such research is time-consuming and expensive — it may take years before results are available.