Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Please write?part 2?of your literature review. You will be essentially cutting and pasting your objective summaries under Level II headings (see p. 13 in your manuals). Put them in an order | EssayAbode

Please write?part 2?of your literature review. You will be essentially cutting and pasting your objective summaries under Level II headings (see p. 13 in your manuals). Put them in an order

Please write part 2 of your literature review. You will be essentially cutting and pasting your objective summaries under Level II headings (see p. 13 in your manuals).

Put them in an order that makes sense given how you compared and contrasted them.

Use your transition compare and contrast words ("similar to"…etc.) !!!

compare and contrast words

USE "CHECK YOUR SIMILARITY HERE" folder in the Contents page. Make any required revisions BEFORE submitting it here for grading. 

Grading: 

APA-7-Compliant Title Page = 15 pts

Review of Literature = 65 pts

  • Objective Summary 3: You have made ALL required revisions of your graded submission based on my yellow notes and feedback = 15 pts

—- Use your W(5) H(1) Notes HW assignment to —–

  •  Transition = 5 pts + Then Write Objective Summary 2 = 20 pts 
  •  Transition = 5 pts + Then Write Objective Summary 3 = 20 pts

APA-7-Compliant References Page = 20 pts

  • Include ALL three research articles in proper APA 7 format, and list alphabetically – Use Foundations text for help

5

Research and Critical Analysis

Student Name

University

Professor

Course

Date

The Effects of Smoking on Lung Cancer Rates among Adults in New York

This literature study aims to synthesize the results of three studies into a coherent picture of the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening with and without smoking cessation therapies. With an acknowledged cost-effectiveness criterion of $109,000 per QALY gained, the first research by Villanti et al. (2013) revealed that yearly repeat lung cancer tests in a high-risk cohort of individuals aged 50–64 were very cost-effective. A second research by Sharma et al. (2018) demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of the screening was enhanced by an increase in the Care quality saved when smoking cessation therapies were linked with the yearly screening program. Thirdly, O'Keeffe et al. (2018) observed that the impact of smoking on lung cancer risk is the same in both sexes.

Compare and Contrast

1. What articles have similarities in each section below?

Methodology

Villanti et al . (2013), Sharma et al.(2018), and O'Keeffe et al. (2018) employed qualitative research methodologies to analyze the feasibility of lung cancer screening and the paybacks of incorporating smoking cessation therapies. Specifically, the authors utilized data from the NHIS to assess the utility cost of annual, recurrent LDCT examinations for the previous 15 years within an imagined significant population of 18 million persons aged above 50 to 64 years. They also utilized data from the NYC taxpayer databases to analyze the cancer therapy expenses. The researchers of all three studies did their study between 2012 through 2018, respectively. Villanti et al . (2013) and Sharma et al.(2018) both utilized data from the NHIS, whereas O'Keeffe et al. (2018) used statistics from Smokers Quitline in New York.

Findings

 Smoking is a significant cause of lung cancer, according to studies by Villanti et al. (2013), Sharma et al. (2018), and O'Keeffe et al. (2018). The researchers of all three studies concluded that lung screening test reduces the chance of lung cancer mortality. They also discovered that quitting smoking programs may boost the financial efficiency of lung cancer screenings.

Recommendation

For persons aged 50 to 64 who have smoked for more than 30 pack-years, yearly lung cancer screening is advised by Villanti et al. (2013), Sharma et al. (2018), and O'Keeffe et al. (2018). Additionally, they conclude that when combined with tobacco cessation therapies, lung screening test is even more cost-effective. It is specifically suggested in the Villanti et al. (2013) and Sharma et al. (2018) study that smoking cessation therapies be coupled with yearly lung cancer testing to increase the cost-effectiveness of the screening program. Similar findings are drawn in the study of O'Keeffe et al. (2018) that quitting smoking is crucial for lowering lung cancer-related morbidity and death.

2. What articles have differences in each section below?

Methodology

While Sharma et al. (2018) utilized a randomized experiment to examine the efficacy of a quitline versus brochures in encouraging lung cancer tests, Villanti et al. (2013) used a simulation model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of testing for lung cancer. The link between smoke and lung cancer risk in both men and women was investigated in the research by O'Keeffe et al. (2018) using data across 99 prospective studies. Villanti et al. (2013) and Sharma et al. (2018) focussed on the expenditure in ldct and the benefits of incorporating smoking cessation programs, respectively. O'Keeffe et al. (2018) assessed the gender disparities in lung cancer and cigarette smoking connection. While Sharma et al. (2018) and O'Keeffe et al. (2018) selected their respondents from New York State, Villanti et al. (2013) recruited their study subjects from the United States.

Findings

According to the results of all three studies, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer in both sexes. However, the researchers of the O'Keeffe et al. (2018) study concluded that there was no proof that women were at a higher risk of developing lung cancer from smoking than males. According to Villanti et al. (2013), including smoking cessation measures in the routine screening program boosted the disorder's cost-effectiveness by 40–45%. The study's authors considered the instructional booklet to be an efficient and cost-effective method of disseminating information about lung cancer screening ( Sharma et al.,2018).

Recommendations

According to research published in 2013 by Villanti et al., adults aged 50–64 who have smoked for 30 or more pack-years should be screened for lung cancer every year. According to Sharma et al. (2018), individuals who smoke and receive LCS should get smoking cessation therapy. According to O'Keeffe et al. (2018), tobacco control programs that discourage both sexes from smoking while simultaneously enticing people to give up the habit should continue to be a top focus.

 

 

References

Villanti, A. C., Jiang, Y., Abrams, D. B., & Pyenson, B. S. (2013). A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions. PloS one, 8(8), e71379.

Sharma, A., Bansal-Travers, M., Celestino, P., Fine, J., Reid, M. E., Hyland, A., & O’Connor, R. (2018). Using a smoking cessation quitline to promote lung cancer screening. American journal of health behavior, 42(6), 85-100

O’Keeffe, L. M., Taylor, G., Huxley, R. R., Mitchell, P., Woodward, M., & Peters, S. A. (2018). Smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer in women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  BMJ open, 8(10), e021611.

,

Running head: GRADUATE RESEARCH & CRITICAL ANALYSIS 1

GRADUATE RESEARCH & CRITICAL ANALYSIS 2

The Effects of Smoking on Lung Cancer Rates among Adults in New York

Pulla Rao Uppatala

MSc in Computer Science, King Graduate School

KG 604: Graduate Research & Critical Analysis

Dr. Aditi Puri

17 Nov 2022

:

Objective Summary

Who: Lung cancer and smoking association differences among women and men by O'Keeffe et al. 

Why: This study's main objective was to examine the gender differences in lung cancer and smoking association.  

When: The authors conducted research between 1999 and 2016. In this period, the researchers considered the age and pre-existing condition of participants from the previous studies. 

Where: The authors reviewed Embase and PubMed for journal articles, documenting the association between lung cancer and smoking in a general sample of women and men. Two researchers independently screened studies, and a third author resolved any disagreements. Data were retrieved in triplicate from papers thought to be relevant.

How: The researchers conducted meta-analyses and systematic reviews of previously conducted prospective cohort studies on gender- the relationship of having smoked with the risk of death from any non-fatal lung cancer recently published. They scanned for articles published in EMBASE and Medline databases. The computer-assisted search incorporated medically significant terms and complimentary phrases related to 'smoking,' ' lung cancer,' "gender," and "prospective cohort studies."(O'Keeffe et al., 2018). The authors then used random-effects meta-analysis to pool the variations in the natural log of the Parameter across trials in their meta-analysis. The authors also performed planned subgroup analyses to test the results' validity. According to the findings, the study discovered no variation in the probability of lung cancer in both sexes. O'Keeffe et al. (2018) states that "In this systematic review and meta-analysis, comprising data from more than 7 million participants, 99 cohort studies, and over 50000 incident cases of lung cancer, there was no evidence for a difference in the risk of smoking-related lung cancer in women compared with men"(p.4). This statement was accurate across many subgroups of men. Although the smoking rate and severity were greater in men than in women in many studies of the review, the authors explain that there could be an undiscovered gender difference in the likelihood of cancer for the lungs that will show when cigarette smoking becomes highly prevalent in women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

O’Keeffe, L. M., Taylor, G., Huxley, R. R., Mitchell, P., Woodward, M., & Peters, S. A. (2018). Smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer in women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  BMJ open8(10), e021611.

,

NOTES FOR TWO MORE RESEARCH ARTICLES 1

The Effects of Smoking on Lung Cancer Rates among Adults in New York

Pulla Rao Uppatala

MSc in Computer Science, King Graduate School

KG 604: Graduate Research & Critical Analysis

Dr. Aditi Puri

14 Nov 2022

New Research Article 1

Who: The assessment of cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the paybacks on integrating smoking cessation interventions was performed by Villanti et al.

Why: This study aimed to assess whether LDCT screening for lung cancer among commercially insured individuals between 50 and 64 years at high risk for this disorder is turning out to be cost-effective. The authors also strived to quantify the extra payback of integrating smoking cessation solutions within lung cancer screening programs.

When: The authors analyzed their study in 2012 assuming that all existing smokers and half of the prior smoker population aged between 50 and 64 years were eligible for screening, with the minimum being set at least thirty packs –years of smoking.

Where: The researchers used data from National Health Interview Survey on cigarette smoking conditions for individuals between 45 and 64 years who were making 30% of active smokers across the United States at the time. The cancer treatment costs were acquired from New York's taxpayer database, which provided information including physician, hospital, drug and ancillary costs eligible for insurer reimbursement.

How: The authors used qualitative research methods to build up on the prior simulation model to determine the utility cost of yearly, recurring LDCT screenings for the last 15 years within an assumed high-risk population of 18 million adults aged between 50 and 64 years. It specifically involved those who have consumed over 30 packs within their smoking history. The authors' findings indicate that the recurring yearly lung cancer screening within the high-risk population has been effective. Providing smoking cessation strategies within the yearly screening program has increased the cost-effectiveness of the disorder by between 40 and 45%.

New Research Article 2

Who: The study on Using a smoking cessation quitline to promote lung cancer screening was performed by Sharma et al.

Why: The goal of their study was to compare two alternatives to dispense information concerning lung cancer screening. This included a quitline, a mailed brochure pinned with in-depth messaging facilitated by a quitline coach. Therefore, the authors focused on assessing the strategy that will be effective and have a significant impact on the participants searching for information about lung cancer screening. The authors thus hypothesized that the individuals who received the brochure would report having spoken to their insurance company or physician and compare it to those who only received the brochure and made no contact.

When: The authors recruited their research participants in 2018

Where: The target population came from residents residing in New York State but outside Niagara and Erie counties.

How: The authors performed a randomized trial involving New York State Smokers Quitline respondents to determine the impact of disseminating a brochure comprising information on benefits, risks and costs related to lung cancer screening compared to a brochure supplemented with phone-based and in-depth messaging. The research findings identified that the educational brochure was an effective and affordable strategy for dispensing information regarding lung cancer screening.

References

Sharma, A., Bansal-Travers, M., Celestino, P., Fine, J., Reid, M. E., Hyland, A., & O’Connor, R. (2018). Using a smoking cessation quitline to promote lung cancer screening.  American journal of health behavior42(6), 85-100.

Villanti, A. C., Jiang, Y., Abrams, D. B., & Pyenson, B. S. (2013). A cost-utility analysis of lung cancer screening and the additional benefits of incorporating smoking cessation interventions.  PloS one8(8), e71379.

Related Tags

Academic APA Assignment Business Capstone College Conclusion Course Day Discussion Double Spaced Essay English Finance General Graduate History Information Justify Literature Management Market Masters Math Minimum MLA Nursing Organizational Outline Pages Paper Presentation Questions Questionnaire Reference Response Response School Subject Slides Sources Student Support Times New Roman Title Topics Word Write Writing