and you have to read Question 2 resource file when you answering question 2
and you have to read Question 3 resource file when you answering question 3
Read the instructions, the questions, and the accompanying materials carefully.
PLEASE FORMAT AND SUBMIT YOUR ASSIGNMENT IN THE FOLLOWING WAY:
Please start your answer to each question on a new page, and make sure you have numbered the pages.
AND PUT THE NO. OF QUSTION IN THE TOP OF ANSWER AND ALSO THE LETTER OF ITEM BESIDE EACH THE ANSWER
Please use single line spacing, and use at least 11pt font.
Start each question on a new page.
For some questions, you might choose to include references in your response. Please list your references at the end of the question to which the references apply (for example, if you use references in Question 1 part a, list these references at end of your response to Question 1, parts a, b and c). References should follow the style specified by the ICMJE (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html)
Where word limits are specified, treat this as a guide. Do not write more than the word limit, but if you don’t need to use the full word limit to answer the question that is fine.
QUESTION 1 (20 MARKS)
Consider this scenario, and then answer the questions which follow
You have recently joined the Institute for Excellent Research as a Research Fellow. Your supervisor asks you to join a research project that is investigating the impact of a recent government policy change on access to health services for particular population groups. This research has been commissioned and funded by The Healthy Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation that is particularly concerned about the likely impact of this policy change.
Your team at the Institute for Excellent Research have already collected the data that you will need. Your role is to assist in the analysis of these data and to write several sections of a report that will be submitted to The Healthy Foundation. Your supervisor also wants you to write a paper for peer reviewed publication based on this research.
Because the report to The Healthy Foundation and the paper for peer reviewed publication are on the same topic, you replicate some of the text that you wrote for the report in the Introduction and Methods Sections of your paper. You include some of the tables and figures from the report in your paper, although the paper also includes additional results that do not appear in the report. The Discussion section of the paper is mostly original, and expands substantially on the conclusions given in the report to The Healthy Foundation.
After reading your completed draft of the paper, your supervisor suggests that you send a copy to Dr Smith—the Medical Director of The Healthy Foundation—for her comments. You do so, and Dr Smith recommends that you remove some of the additional results from the paper, and that you modify your conclusions in a way that makes them more critical of the government’s policy. You make these changes, and you ask Dr Smith if she would like to be listed as a co-author, but she declines the offer.
You submit your paper to your target journal with yourself listed as the first author, your supervisor as the last author, and your team at the Institute for Excellent Research as coauthors. Under “Disclosures” on the journal’s Conflict of Interest form, you state that the research was funded by The Healthy Foundation.
|Please answer the following questions||Marks (20)|
|a) List and explain the issues of research integrity that arise in this scenario (word limit: 350 words)||10|
|b) Discuss how you would resolve the issues of research integrity in this scenario (word limit: 350 words)||5|
|c) Discuss how you would avoid similar issues in the future (word limit: 350 words)||5|
QUESTION 2 (15 MARKS)
To answer this question, refer to the following paper:
Jindel R, Joseph J, Morries M, Santella R and Baines L. Noncompliance after kidney transplantation: A systematic review. Transplantation Proceedings, 2003; 35: 2868-2872 (IN ATTACHMENT you can find the paper in question 2 resource file ) http://opac.library.usyd.edu.au:80/record=b5008243~S4
|Please answer the following question||Marks (15)|
|Based on this paper, write a conference abstract for submission to the Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand Annual Society Meeting (TSANZ ASM).
The TSANZ guidelines for abstract format are as follows:
Font: Times New Roman, 10 point, single spacing.
Your abstract must adhere to:
QUESTION 3 (25 MARKS)
This question requires you to download and read 3 resources provided in ATTACHMENT (the paper in question 3 resource file ). These documents are (i) the original submission of a manuscript to a journal (ii) the comments of one reviewer in assessment of the manuscript, and (iii) the resubmitted manuscript, amended by the authors in response to the reviewer’s comments (and also amended in response to additional comments from a second reviewer – you have not been provided with these second reviewer’s comments).
These are real documents relating to a paper that was subsequently published. The 3 documents you have been provided with have been censored to obscure the identity of the authors. Although there is no doubt you could still, with effort, identify the final publication that the 3 documents pertain to, doing so will likely be obvious to your assessor and will not improve your grade.
|Please answer the following questions||Marks (25)|
|a) Name the appropriate reporting guideline for this study design and describe how well the amended manuscript adheres (or not) to this guideline (word limit = 500 words)||6|
|b) Suggest a title and 4 keywords for the manuscript||4|
|c) Draft a formal response letter to the journal, imagining you were responding to the reviewer’s comments and resubmitting the amended version of the manuscript.
To do this you will need to use the reviewer’s comments along with the original and amended versions of the manuscript to see the changes that were made.
Note: some of the changes that were made in the amended manuscript relate to reviewers comments which you have not seen. In your letter, respond only to the concerns of the reviewer that you have been provided with, and refer to changes that relate to those comments.
QUESTION 4 (10 MARKS)
Figure 1 below is taken from a study of the association between nut consumption and risk of mortality. The original paper from which this figure was taken can be found here:
Guasch-Ferré M et al. Frequency of nut consumption and mortality risk in the PREDIMED nutrition intervention trial. BMC Medicine, 2013; 11:164
Participants in this study were randomised to one of 3 dietary interventions:
- Dietary intervention A: Mediterranean diet enriched with extra-virgin olive oil
- Dietary intervention B: Mediterranean diet supplemented with mixed nuts
- Control diet: Advice on a low fat diet.
Participants filled out a food frequency questionnaire at baseline. On the basis of this food frequency questionnaire, participants in all arms of the trial were categorised according to their level of nut consumption. Nut consumption categories were: never/rarely, 1-3 servings per week, and >3 servings per week.
Figure 1 shows the adjusted hazard ratios for all cause mortality by frequency of self-reported nut consumption at baseline and dietary intervention group.
|Please answer the following questions||Marks (10)|
|a) Identify and explain 4 problems with this figure
[tip, think about overall design, the type of data, the validity of the data presentation, and ease of interpretation]
|b) Redraw this figure, addressing the problems you identified in (a), and any other that you can see, using the data provided in the table below.||6|