Saturday, February 29, 2020

Analysis of a Media Source’s Coverage on a Research

The Wall Street Journal published an article regarding a recent psychopharmacology study on depression done by Dr. Hunter that investigated whether pre-medication brain activity corresponded with treatment outcome. In addition, the article discusses the interesting results garnered from the placebo group v. medicated group analysis. While the news piece does a fair job in representing the study’s findings, the author does delve into extrapolations not statistically supported in the actual study. Fifty-one adults who were diagnosed with major depression were used in the study, and this was accurately reported by the news article (Wang, 2006). Hunter et al. investigated whether there were significant differences in â€Å"demographic characteristics, illness history, baseline illness severity, [and] final response[s],† and finding none, pooled the subjects for analysis (2006, p. 1427). This does give the Journal, who must condense the findings for the public, good reason to fail in reporting this. The study is experimental in nature, also using double-blind and randomized assignment to help rid the results of confounding variable input. All of the subjects were given a placebo anti-depressant for a one-week lead-in; after this, half of the individuals were continued on the placebo while the others were given one of two anti-depressants. Electroencephalograph (EEG) readings were taken at the time of enrollment, after the lead-in period, and several times later (over an eight week period). The Wall Street Journal condenses this explanation down, and while the article abandons the jargon of an experimenter, it does give the impression of an experimental method being followed. When the news article explains how the researchers defined their variables they leave out valuable information. The author states that patients with certain brain-patterns â€Å"ended up responding better to antidepressant treatment[s],† but fails to mention how this was evaluated (Wang, 2006, p. 1). A Hamilton depression scale was given to judge improvement, giving reliability to the study’s findings. However, the news piece does accurately report that EEG was also used, in an attempt to find a decrease in prefrontal lobe activity. This study uses a control group, those maintained on the placebo, and compares their EEGs to those of the medicated group, but the main focus of the research was the search for experimental evidence supporting that the commonly used one-week lead-in can predict treatment outcome via brain imaging. The Wall Street Journal article focuses on only a facet of the study, and one that the researcher’s claim to have nonsignificant support for. Wang states that, â€Å"patients who developed this brain-pattern change ended up responding better †¦ than patients who didn’t,† which is misleading to an audience that has not read the actual research (2006, p. 1). While Hunter et al. do find that their EEG scans were a good indicator of treatment success, they also caution that: Although the placebo and medication group analyses yielded different brain regional predictors of outcomes, because of the absence of statistical group interaction we cannot conclude that changes in †¦ [the differing brain regions] †¦ differentially predicted outcomes (2006, p. 430). The news article wrongly insinuates that the study provided evidence for a brain-pattern that is linked to a good treatment outcome in depression. It is certainly true that this study offered outcomes that encourage research in this direction, and that the author also seems to believe that the EEG-pattern found is â€Å"a good indicator† for success, but after reading the actual experiment, Wang seems to have inflated the actual findings. Having critiqued the insinuations of the news piece, the extrapolations made by the author do have some merit. The researchers discovered that both the medicated and the placebo groups had a similar variance â€Å"predicted by the neurophysiological changes occurring during the placebo lead-in phase† (Hunter et al. , 2006, p. 1429). They offered some possible causal factors such as â€Å"pharmacotherapeutic alliance and pretreatment expectations,† these results seem to demonstrate a placebo-treatment effect, which offers even more reason to further investigate how a patient’s treatment induction affects his/her progress (Hunter et al. , 2006, p. 1429). Though not mentioned or referenced in the Wall Street Journal item, the ethical issues surrounding this experiment are noted by Hunter et al. Providing individuals suffering from major depression placebos for eight weeks is risky, using a double-blind procedure makes it even more dangerous. While the IRB board of UCLA did require a 15-25 minute counseling session during each patient’s visit, this is a massive step down from the psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic support offered at the recruitment area (a psychiatric outpatient hospital) (Hunter et al. 2006). Conversely though, this ethical â€Å"patch† does raise an interesting question for further research, lightly touched on by the study’s authors; if this psychotherapy (however minute) was responsible for a pre-treatment neurophysiological shift, and the shifts that were indicatory of better treatment outcomes could be identified, research could be done to more effectively meld psychotherapy and medic al psychiatry. It is understandable why media reports often leave out details of a research study, often the conclusions and discussion by the author/s of the study are of more interest to the public. However, when a media piece merely latches onto a nonsignificant observation or a suggestion for future research found in the study, the true findings of the experiment are overshadowed by the speculation of the piece’s author. When a media source offers information about a study, it is vital to maintain a skeptical and critical mindset towards the findings until they are corroborated by the primary source. It is important to look for information that supports the generalizability of the study’s findings. In the piece presented above, it is worth noting that the study was done on depressed individuals, other psychopathologies may not have any correlation to the results or conclusions provided. The media also commonly jumps from correlation to causation, whether directly or implicitly. While scientific information is the goal of research, sensitization by the media will usually occur to some degree.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Medical Marijuana Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Medical Marijuana - Essay Example Contextually, the use of marijuana has confronted with various significant issues owing to the reason of the infringement of federal law in different countries2. Thesis Statement In this paper, the legal issues concerning whether or not the existing medicinal marijuana program in California violates the federal law of the nation and the power of the federal government towards limiting the passage of laws linked with medical marijuana would be addressed. Moreover, the issue relating to the lawful right of raiding medicinal marijuana providers by the officials of law enforcement belonging to any state will also be addressed in this paper. Analysis or Discussion California has been viewed to be one of the states, which is certified towards using marijuana especially for medicinal purposes. In relation to analyze the legal issue concerning whether or not the violation of California’s current program relating to medical marijuana violates federal law, it has been viewed that the Ca lifornia voters enthusiastically passed the ‘Compassionate Use Act’ in order to legalize the substance i.e. marijuana particularly for medical purposes in the year 1996. It has been apparently observed in this context that California has been a foremost leader in adopting marijuana legally3.Before the year 1996, California prohibited the sale as well as the possession of marijuana but the state once again started to endorse in making limited drug usage for medical reasons only with the commencement of the aforementioned Act. The state considered this approach for the motive of delivering useful drugs to the patients at the time of any urgency. The Act was mainly established in order to persuade both state along with federal governments for adopting as well as implementing deliberate steps towards ensuring secure and sensible drug allocation to the patients in necessity4. There are various reasons for introducing the ‘Compassionate Use Act of 1996’ in Califo rnia. In this similar concern, the different purposes of the Act encompass ensuring that every seriously ill individual of California possesses the right to acquire as well as use marijuana especially for medical reasons and fostering both federal as well as state government towards utilizing a plan for delivering effective allocation of marijuana to all patients in need5. With regard to analyze the legal issue concerning whether California’s current medical marijuana program violates federal law, it has been apparently observed that federal law forbids the production, allocation as well as possession of marijuana by a significant level. In this regard, no exclusion has been facilitated by the federal law for using marijuana for medical purposes. The federal law strongly possesses the viewpoint that the substance i.e. marijuana is extremely addictive and most importantly does not bear any medicinal value. This critical standpoint of the federal government against marijuana ma y cause the medical practitioners to not recommend marijuana to be used for medical reasons under the provision of federal law. The federal laws concerning the use of marijuana have been identified to be quite serious and to be depicting severe punishment to those individuals who broadly engage in the

Saturday, February 1, 2020

What has gone wrong with Williams teams efforts and what should be Case Study

What has gone wrong with Williams teams efforts and what should be done to ensure a successful outcome for the team - Case Study Example The group dynamic theory highlights on the social and psychological problems that come up in workplaces. Members of the team have differences in their opinions on the way forward. Tom is one of the longest serving employees in the organization and has earned more respect from William. Other members of the team include Bryce, Casey, and Jenny. â€Å"They do not feel loyalty for the organizations they work for† (Barr and Gassenheimer 2005, p.82) The major setback among the team leaders is that they lack a common understanding. â€Å"Designing team assignments and creating environments that support and enhance these skills are critical for learning," (Barr and Gassenheimer, 2005, p. 82) Tom makes most of the decisions hence denying other members of the chance to express their views. According to the group dynamic theory, all team members should be offered an equal opportunity to present their ideas. On the contrary, Tom is seen to make most of the contributions whereas he is not the group leader. Another problem is the lack of interest. Bryce’s objective is to see the work done. He does not care where the ideas on the new renovations will be put in place. Jenny, on the other hand, has also been issued with another project that has led to her change in focus. The group dynamic theory has stipulated various solutions to group problems. Firstly, the levels of personal and teamwork communications should be advanced. â€Å"All communication within groups is between individuals and is, therefore, interpersonal communication† (David and Frank 2000, p.145). Relay of information among the group members will help them improve their skills. All employees should contribute opinions while the group leaders should make rational decisions. â€Å"The group predominates over the individuals and members are expected to accommodate to the demands of the group† (Hill, James, Danny, & Mark, 2007, p.71). Tom’s hard work has made the other team members to look