Synthesis Matrix

Here is the link to my in class work of the synthesis matrix.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0cnULTylW4SSzVZcW5rUmdESVE/view?usp=sharing

Research Journal 3

1) Jacquemin, B., Siroux, V., Sanchez, M., Carsin, A.-E., Schikowski, T., Adam, M., … Kauffmann, F. (2015). Ambient Air Pollution and Adult Asthma Incidence in Six European Cohorts (ESCAPE). Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(6), 613–621. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408206

This article is a cohort method. It is related to my topic because it is looking at the effects of how air pollution in the younger years impact the prevalence of asthma in the adult years of life.Along with this, it also looks at the effects of short term exposure to air pollution simultaneously. This allows this study to look at both points of view, and works well in my results section due to this. It would fit well with my results especially with the short term results section, but the long term effects had some interesting results. They could prove that there was a positive relation between pollution and asthma, but they could not prove that it was significant enough to say it is correlated.

2) Zmirou, D., Gauvin, S., Pin, I., Momas, I., Sahraoui, F., Just, J., … Labbe, A. (2004). Traffic related air pollution and incidence of childhood asthma: results of the Vesta case-control study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58(1), 18–23. http://doi.org/10.1136/jech.58.1.18

This article is a review of a cohort study. It is related to my topic because it is looking at the effects of air pollution and its effects on asthma in later life. It looks at this in five different areas of France. It also takes into account the amount of other environmental factors, such as tobacco smoke and allergies, which could have skewed the results otherwise. Along with this, it is looking at children ages 4 to 14. One thing that I found interesting about this article was that they factored their entire life exposure, including an assessed exposure amount to the participants for the years 0-3. 

3)Nandasena, S., Wickremasinghe, A. R., & Sathiakumar, N. (2012). Respiratory health status of children from two different air pollution exposure settings of Sri Lanka: A cross-sectional study. American Journal Of Industrial Medicine, 55(12), 1137-1145. doi:10.1002/ajim.22020

This article is a cohort study. The article is related to my topic because it is about the respiratory heath of children. They are looking at whether or not the effects of air pollution are different in an urban setting than in a non urban setting. They are also looking at the effects on children. One thing that I found somewhat interesting about this article was that there was a negligible difference between the two groups of children, and this is attributable to a few key factors. 

4)

Caroline Barakat-Haddad PhD

, Susan J. Elliott PhD

 and David Pengelly PhD

Annals of Epidemiology, 2012-04-01, Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 239-249, Copyright © 2012

This is a cohort study. This article is related to my topic because it is looking at the effects of long term air pollution on the lungs. They are looking to see if long term exposure will result in a higher likeliness to having asthma later in life. They are using the participants from a study done in the 80's, and they are using the data from that study to find the correllation to the prevalence of asthma. The thing that I found interesting about this article was that they are using data from such an old study. 

5) Mengersen, K., Morawska, L., Wang, H., Murphy, N., Tayphasavanh, F., Darasavong, K., & Holmes, N. S. (2011). Association between indoor air pollution measurements and respiratory health in women and children in Lao PDR. Indoor Air, 21(1), 25-35. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00679.x

This is a Cohort study. This article is related to my topic because it is looking at the effects on indoor air pollution on future respiratory health problems. This article looks at the indoor air pollution in 3rd world countries, and the problems that these people have later in life due to the smoke, and other indoor pollutants. I could use this in my results section to go over the effects of indoor pollution due to the fact that most of my other studies focus on outdoor pollutants like cars and factories. One thing that I found interesting in this article is that it looked at indoor, as none of my other articles did this.

In Class Work 2/6 and 2/8

1.             How do you reference this journal in an APA work cited?

Barraza-Villarreal, A., Sunyer, J., Hernandez-Cadena, L., Escamilla-Nuñez, M. C., Sienra-Monge, J. J., Ramírez-Aguilar, M., … Romieu, I. (2008). Air Pollution, Airway Inflammation, and Lung Function in a Cohort Study of Mexico City Schoolchildren. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(6), 832–838. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.10926

2.     what method is being used?

Cohort

3.     How do the authors use the method? What do they use it for? What specifically does the method enable them to do? Why did they choose this method rather than another? What was it about this research agenda/topic that led them to choose this particular method? Answer a handful of these. They all get at similar thing. But I want blocks of texts.

The authors use the cohort method in order to prove. They are able to use it to prove an association and or causation between the inflammation of the airways and lung function to the amount of pollution in Mexico City. They chose this method so that they could directly say that the pollutant particle PM2.5 had a direct association to the overall lung function and amount of airway inflammation in the schoolchildren of Mexico City.

4.     What is the conclusion of the study? And how did the method enable them to reach that particular conclusion?

The conclusion of this study was that the children had a very distinct reaction to the particle PM2.5. Both the children with and without asthma had reactions, and has higher risk of respiratory infections. Even though both had reactions to PM2.5, the children with asthma had more, and more severe reactions.

5.     The interesting thing about this article is that the specific article PM2.5 had a direct effect to the symptoms of asthma.

1.     How do you reference this journal in an APA work cited?

Dick S, Doust E, Cowie H, et al Associations between environmental exposures and asthma control and exacerbations in young children: a systematic review

BMJ Open 2014;4:e003827. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003827

2.     What method is being used?

This is a systematic review.

3.     How do the authors use the method? What do they use it for? What specifically does the method enable them to do? Why did they choose this method rather than another? What was it about this research agenda/topic that led them to choose this particular method? Answer a handful of these. They all get at similar thing. But I want blocks of texts.

They use the review in order to review multiple articles that are looking at the association between any of the environmental pollutants and asthma symptoms in children under the age of 9. They chose this method in order to look at multiple articles, and get a general consensus on the literature on the topic. They were lead to this method because it is the only way to review multiple pieces of literature, and they didn’t have the ability/possible desire to complete their own actual research. Instead they wanted to get the general consensus on what the conclusions of similar studies are.

4.     What is the conclusion of the study? And how did the method enable them to reach that particular conclusion?

They found that the environmental pollutants induced the symptoms of asthma. Their method enabled them to find this consensus by looking at multiple studies on the same general topic.

5.     The interesting thing that I found in this article was that the resounding opinion of the studies was that emissions had a direct correlation to the symptoms of asthma.

1.     How do you reference this journal in an APA work cited?

Zmirou, D., Gauvin, S., Pin, I., Momas, I., Sahraoui, F., Just, J., … Labbe, A. (2004). Traffic related air pollution and incidence of childhood asthma: results of the Vesta case-control study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58(1), 18–23. http://doi.org/10.1136/jech.58.1.18

2.     What method is being used?

This is a cross sectional study.

3.     How do the authors use the method? What do they use it for? What specifically does the method enable them to do? Why did they choose this method rather than another? What was it about this research agenda/topic that led them to choose this particular method? Answer a handful of these. They all get at similar thing. But I want blocks of texts.

The authors use this method to collect data on a large population over a section of time, it is also over a longer period of time than other methods. They chose this method to get a diverse sample group. It also allows them to look at the effects of traffic emissions on the lungs, specifically on the occurrence of asthma. This method allows them to look at a much larger population than say a cohort study, so the conclusion can be more reliable.

4.     What is the conclusion of the study? And how did the method enable them to reach that particular conclusion?

The study concludes that the effects of traffic pollution probably had an effect on the rise of prevalence of asthma in the upcoming generation. They were able to get this through looking at a couple hundred people, and cross referencing the amount of ambient traffic pollution in their daily lives.

5.     The thing that I found interesting was that it correlated the traffic emissions directly to the rise in asthma throughout the new generation of kids.

1.     How do you reference this journal in an APA work cited?

Nandasena, S., Wickremasinghe, A. R., & Sathiakumar, N. (2012). Respiratory health status of children from two different air pollution exposure settings of Sri Lanka: A cross-sectional study. American Journal Of Industrial Medicine, 55(12), 1137-1145. doi:10.1002/ajim.22020

2.     What method is being used?

This is a cross sectional study.

3.     How do the authors use the method? What do they use it for? What specifically does the method enable them to do? Why did they choose this method rather than another? What was it about this research agenda/topic that led them to choose this particular method? Answer a handful of these. They all get at similar thing. But I want blocks of texts.

.The authors use this method in order to look at a large amount of people over a longer period of time. It can give them more accurate results, and it gives them results from a long period of time, unlike some studies which look at short bursts of time. They chose this method because they are looking for a wide variety of backgrounds and over a long period of time. They were looking at multiple areas in India, both have a variety of different emissions, so a large variety of people would give the best overall results.

4.     What is the conclusion of the study? And how did the method enable them to reach that particular conclusion?

They concluded that both indoor and outdoor air pollution in both metropolitan and non metropolitan areas has an effect on symptoms of asthma. They got this conclusion from the wide population that the researchers decided on.

5.     The thing that I found interesting was that both groups of kids, metropolitan and non metropolitan had asthmatic issues.

1.     How do you reference this journal in an APA work cited?

Caroline Barakat-Haddad PhD, Susan J. Elliott PhD and David Pengelly PhD

Annals of Epidemiology, 2012-04-01, Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 239-249, Copyright © 2012

2.     What method is being used?

This is a questionnaire

3.     How do the authors use the method? What do they use it for? What specifically does the method enable them to do? Why did they choose this method rather than another? What was it about this research agenda/topic that led them to choose this particular method? Answer a handful of these. They all get at similar thing. But I want blocks of texts.

The authors of this article use this method because the participants already had a study done on them during the 1970s, so they did this as a follow up to the original study. They used this follow up to see if the effects seen in the original study stuck around and were still prevalent. They also used this method to see if the effects of their childhood exposure have possibly got worse.

4.     What is the conclusion of the study? And how did the method enable them to reach that particular conclusion?

The conclusion of the study is that there was around a 30% correlation to the prevalence of adult respiratory issues. They were able to get this by asking the participants their experiences throughout their adulthood.

The thing that I found interesting was that there was a large portion of the sample that had persistent issues with their respiratory function. 

Research Journal 2

What is your topic? Or what are your key words thus far?

My topic is about respiratory health in areas with high amounts of air pollution and the short and long term effects.

What is your research question? Have you decided to change it at all? And, if you have, how do I know that the way in which this question is formulated is appropriate to conduct a literature review with a systematic approach? 

My question is: What effect does living in an area with a high concentration of air pollutants have on the function of the respiratory system. 

And what are the definitions on which it depends?

My question depends on multiple key terms.

Air Pollution: the presence in or introduction into the air of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects.

Respiratory Health: The current health of the entire respiratory system, including lungs, respiratory tract, bronchi, etc. 

Asthmatic: A person who is suffering from asthma.

Cohort: A type of medical research used to investigate the causes of disease, establishing links between risk factors and health outcomes.

What is your hierarchy of evidence? And how do I know you going about finding the most appropriate evidence/method for your research question?

Because of the fact that my project is focused entirely on the medical causes and effects of certain things on the body, the best method seems to be the cohort study or case control method. It directly looks into what is causing issues, in my case poor respiratory function, and tries to seek them out. 

1. Cohort Study

2.Cross sectional

3.RCT

4. Anecdotal 

How do I know that the remit of the method itself is selecting the research, rather than just you on a whim? + 1 thing you found interesting + how you imagine using the source

Article #1:

Barraza-Villarreal, A., Sunyer, J., Hernandez-Cadena, L., Escamilla-Nuñez, M. C., Sienra-Monge, J. J., Ramírez-Aguilar, M., … Romieu, I. (2008). Air Pollution, Airway Inflammation, and Lung Function in a Cohort Study of Mexico City Schoolchildren. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(6), 832–838.

This article is very relevant to my topic. It looks directly at whether there is an effect on SHORT term pollution in schoolchildren who are also asthmatics. The short term factor is important because short and long term effects can be very different.  It compares the effect on both asthmatic children and non-asthmatic children, so it would be a very good source to use on the results section. It could also be used for the introduction of the paper, as it fits so well with my topic. I found their strong results very interesting.

Article 2: 

Caroline Barakat-Haddad , Susan J. Elliott & David Pengelly (2012) Does Chronic Exposure to Air Pollution in Childhood Impact Long-Term Respiratory Health?, The Professional Geographer, 64:3, 446-463, DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2011.609775

This article once again relates very directly to my topic and research question, but in a slightly different way.  It is a LONG term study, and it studies the correlating long term effects of air pollution on the respiratory system. Instead of looking at the effects in asthmatics, it looks to see if childhood exposure to pollutants cause issues later in life, such as asthma. I could see myself using this article in the results section, as it uses unique and new information.  I really found the fact that it was looking at pollution as a cause of asthma very interesting, as opposed to source 1, which looks at the worsening of asthma  due to pollution. 

Article 3: 

Beelen, R., Hoek, G., van den Brandt, P. A., Goldbohm, R. A., Fischer, P., Schouten, L. J., … Brunekreef, B. (2008). Long-Term Effects of Traffic-Related Air Pollution on Mortality in a Dutch Cohort (NLCS-AIR Study). Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(2), 196–202. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.10767

This article is slightly different than the other articles, but it still relates directly to my research question. This paper looks at the effects of pollution only caused by traffic, which is much more specific than the other articles are. It is also looking at the long term effects of this pollution, but not necessarily for the effects on the respiratory system. Instead they looked at the chance of mortality, which I found extremely interesting. Although it does not seek out the correlation for traffic pollution and respiratory health, it does have some good results for it. I could see myself using this article for the methods section, and in the introduction. 

 

Article 4: 

J. Just, C. Ségala, F. Sahraoui, G. Priol, A. Grimfeld, F. Neukirch

European Respiratory Journal Oct 2002, 20 (4) 899-906; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.02.00236902

This article is about the effects on children who already have asthma, and it looks at the short term effects on these children. Instead of looking at the children during high times of pollution, like in winter, they looked at the effects on the children during low times of pollution. This caused some somewhat interesting results. Even though the levels of pollution were low, and well below the government restrictions, the children still experienced a wide variety of respiratory issues. I could see myself using this article in the results section, as it had a very interesting set of results. 

Article 5: 

Jacquemin, B., Siroux, V., Sanchez, M., Carsin, A.-E., Schikowski, T., Adam, M., … Kauffmann, F. (2015). Ambient Air Pollution and Adult Asthma Incidence in Six European Cohorts (ESCAPE). Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(6), 613–621. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408206

This article looked at the effects of pollution and the incidence of asthma in adults. It was interesting to see that the ambient pollution effected even adults heavily, as most of the other studies are about children and the effects on them. I would like to use this paper for the introduction.

Research Journal 1

What was the process by which you narrowed down potential topics to two appropriate ones? And how were these decisions made on the basis of either class discussion, or our required, course textbook (Aveyard 2014), or both?

It was fairly easy for me to narrow down my potential topics. Being a very avid skier, I am very interested in climate change issues and their effects, so I knew that I wanted to do something in the environmental health realm. I have done a couple of papers on the effects of overall climate change before, so I wanted to change my topics and expand my horizons. I decided to get very specific, and instead of looking at the effect of emissions on the environment, I looked at the effects of emissions on humans. Naturally, the easiest place to see the effects of air quality is in the lungs, so that is where I looked.

What research question did you choose, and how are I can be sure you're making a reasoned, academic judgement on the basis of chapters 1-3 (Aveyard 2014)?

My research question is, "What are the effects of air pollution on the lungs in areas with high amounts of natural or man made air pollution". I narrowed down the search by using keywords such as High Emissions, Lung Health, and pollution. 

What article (or articles) are you basing this question on, and what type of article is it (research, theory, policy, practice) (citation[s] in APA, please)? 

C A Pope, 3rd.  Respiratory disease associated with community air pollution and a steel mill, Utah Valley. American Journal of Public Health May 1989: Vol. 79, No. 5, pp. 623-628.

This is a research article.

A S Whittemore and E L Korn.  Asthma and air pollution in the Los Angeles area. American Journal of Public Health July 1980: Vol. 70, No. 7, pp. 687-696.

This is also a research article.

How can I be sure that the key vocabulary of the question corresponds not only to literature in the field, but also to chapter 1-3 (Aveyard 2014)?

I am not really sure on this question. As the time goes on, and my research becomes more and more specific, I am positive that i will be able to answer this question. Due me being in the early stages of research still, this question is difficult to answer. 

Based on what your question is, what kind of literature are you going to need? Again, please explicitly reference the text (Aveyard 2014). What is your hierarchy of evidence?

1) Observational studies

2) Research

3) Qualitative and Quantitative evidence

4) Expert Opinions 

How exactly did you research question arise out of "practice"?

How do you define your key terms, and how do these definitions link to key journals in the field?

Air Pollution AND Lung Health

Lung Health AND Emission Standards

Lung Health AND Population Density

Public Health AND Emissions AND Lung Health

Natural Air Pollution AND Lung Health 

Public Health AND Natural Air Pollution

Air Pollution AND Asthmatics

Did anything unexpected happen? From you initial search, does it appear as though your research question will work? Or does the vocabulary and/or type of research sought need to be changed?

Something very unexpected did in fact happen. When I was originally looking for articles, I came upon one that stated there was no difference in the breathing abilities of asthmatics during the high pollution months of Denver. This went against most every other article in the database, so I am unsure what I should think of this. Although, they do admit some key failures to their study, and state more studies are required.

Any final thoughts?

More evidence is certainly required, and I am looking forward to diving deeper into this topic.