Choosing a proper diet is not an easy task. The decision to include certain elements into it must be based on accurate information about the patient’s condition, the specifics of their metabolism, etc. (Jeanfreau & Jack, 2010). In their article Dietary behaviors related to cancer prevention among pre-adolescents and adolescents: The gap between recommendations and reality, Holman and White (2011) address the issue of cancer prevention through the choice of meals.
Though the authors needed to consider a range of factors, particularly, the environment that creates the premises for cancer development, the properties of a range of meals, etc., they have managed to come up with a convincing and relatively short answer quite quickly because of the careful choice of the research method and the tools used for the study.
The article is split into four rather basic sections, i.e., “Introduction,” “Methods,” “Results” and “Conclusion.” Each of the sections serves its purpose well; for example, “Introduction” tricks the reader into paying attention by providing background information about cancer (Holman & White, 2011, p. 61). The “Methods” section provides all-embracing data regarding the research tools used (NHANES and YRBS (Holman & White, 2011, p. 61)).
The “Results” part is split into several subsections, including the one discussing the process of information retrieval (“Data extraction”), the sections identifying different types of food and their effect on cancer development (“Fruit and vegetables”, “Whole grains,” “Salt”, etc.). The subsection discussing the threats of heavyweight somehow factors in. This seems rather odd, seeing that the rest of the section is devoted to the discussion of food properties. It seems that the specified subsection should have been placed at the end of the section in question, therefore, providing a closure. Eventually, the authors sum up the results of their study in the conclusion.
The objectives of the study were defined rather precisely as summarizing “current dietary recommendations for cancer prevention and compare these recommendations to the dietary behaviors” (Holman & White, 2011, p. 60), though the authors never use the word “objective” in their article, to begin with. Likewise, the researchers never call “identifying gaps between dietary recommendations and the diets of youth” (Holman & White, 2011, p. 60) their research question, yet it is obvious that the paper is focused on improving the current dietary strategies in cancer prevention. The introduction, with the basic information regarding current cancer control and its link to dietary components, serves as a perfect foil for the research question. The subjects of the research, i.e., the elements of a healthy diet, were identified in a very thorough manner (Holman & White, 2011).
The researchers do not straightforwardly identify their research design; it is supposed that the researchers aimed for a systematic review. The data collection process, on the other hand, was described in a very detailed manner. The role of the NHANES and YRBS surveys as the key method of data collection has been explained in detail. The validity of the information acquired, though, is only assumed to be sufficient – the researchers never actually evaluate the data validity.
The results, in their turn, referred to the research question fully: Holman and White identified the basic anti-cancer diet components in a rather accurate manner. The conclusion restated the thesis and aligned with the research results fully. While the researchers do not provide implications for the current dietary norm improvement, they state that the follow-up study will help not only prevent cancer among the U.S. population but also improve the health of American youth in general (Holman & White, 2011).
Compared to the research questions specified by Cottrell, Girvan, and McKenzie (2012), the questions listed above seem quite adequate. While they are not the exact reiteration of the ones suggested by Cottrell et al. (e.g., the question regarding the “reliability and validity for the instruments” (Cottrell et al., 2012, p. 297) has been omitted), they still allow getting the idea of the research. The questions suggested by Cottrell et al. allow for defining the most credible sources and, therefore, improve the quality of research.
Learning about the seven areas outlined by Cottrell (content, authority, publisher source, references, documentation, facts, and dates of authorship or posting (Cottrell et al., 2012, p. 308)) was also essential for determining the credibility of data. Applying the information acquired to determine the credibility of the data represented in EmpowHER (2012), one must admit that the specified source cannot be considered academically credible.
For example, the sources that the authors use in their articles come from.com or.org sites, with little to no.edu or.gov domains. The content, though represented well, lacks substantiality. Much to the site’s credit, though, the information is never ambiguous, the facts align with the information from the references, and the articles are up-to-date. Thus, the specified source is semi-trustworthy, unlike such articles as Young men’s health: Health information for young men around the world (Boston Children’s Hospital, 2012) or Center for young women’s health: Health information for teen girls around the world (Boston Children’s Hospital, 2012a), for example.
Reference List
Boston Children’s Hospital. (2012). Center for young women’s health: Health information for teen girls around the world. Web.
Boston Children’s Hospital. (2012a). Young men’s health: Health information for young men around the world. Web.
Cottrell, R. R., Girvan, J. T., & McKenzie, J. F. (2012). Principles and foundations of health promotion and education (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings. Web.
EmpowHER. (2012). A social health community for women. Web.
Holman, D., & White, M. C. (2011). Dietary behaviors related to cancer prevention among pre-adolescents and adolescents: The gap between recommendations and reality. Nutrition Journal, 10(60), 60-67. Web.
Jeanfreau, S. G., & Jack, L. (2010). Appraising qualitative research in health education: Guidelines for public health educators. Health Promotion Practice, 11(5), 612-617. Web.