I am going to review Ms. Adarna’s entry. Ms. Adarna reviewed three research papers and I can say that she did follow the concept of “varying quality” as she also reviewed a sociological paper rather than those focusing on technical matters.
Given that she only given a snapshot of the research studies mentioned above, I skimmed through the whole paper myself to gain more understanding of why it was done, how was it done and what was the outcome. Such action is important not only in reviewing documents but also to gain more knowledge in how to write my own research paper. In fact, its quite obvious that this task was given to us so as to observe and learn the important parts of writing a research paper of which we are to produce this semester.
Going back to Ms. Adarna’s entry, The first topic she assessed was the Faith in treatment influences efficacy among AIDS patients. The study was made determine the extent to which patients' faith in a treatment influences its effectiveness. To get the data needed for the study, one hundred forty men, requesting for an alternative therapy for AIDS, consisting of repeated injections of typhoid vaccine, were enrolled in a treatment program by a San Francisco AIDS Clinic and also agreed to participate in this independent study of other factors which might affect treatment efficacy. Patients were interviewed before entry into the protocol and at intervals of every 2 months for two years while in the protocol. The patient's "faith in treatment" was assessed at each contact. Clinic physicians made weekly ratings of the patients' sense of subjective improvement. CD4 cell count and white blood cell count were measured regularly.
At then end of the observation it was found that faith in treatment was associated with treatment efficiency. A fall in "faith in treatment" among those who initially responded very positively to the vaccine preceded by 4-6 months the development of a life-threatening infection and deterioration in clinical course. The ten patients who continued to respond to the vaccine at the end of one year and two years were those who continued to have a high "faith in treatment."
It was concluded that an effect of faith in treatment upon the course of AIDS was demonstrated. Faith may be important regardless of the efficacy of a treatment and may be the mediating variable which renders statistically ineffective treatments highly effective for those who believe in them.
Since we were asked to review the topics given, I hope my “personal reaction” to the study would be an accepted reply. Well, I believe in the findings of the study. How many people whose lives were endangered or already hung on a balance between life and death due to these chronic illnesses have survived and shared their love for God. God loving and trusting people do get well or feel better after talking to God. People who are suffering from illness renew their connections to God or make their bond with God more closely and this gives them the energy to fight for life that our Mighty Father has endowed all of us. When with God, giving up is visible, hence people tend to fight for life and leave everything to God. In some cases, people can get cured and yet they are ones who let themselves down, thinking that it would be impossible. It is with this kind of people where placebos are an alternative. Placebos are like faith. You give “sick” people faith, and hope and they will fight and positivity will reign. Being positive gives people power to cure themselves and dust themselves off. The study above has a nice topic since it shows results that people/hospitals can use to cure patients. It is very valuable for the people and the environment.
The second topic is, eWatch: A Wearable Sensor and Notification Platform. The idea behind it is already creative and fun since it gives attention to creating wearable computing. The eWatch needs to be small and energy efficient enough to allow for multiple day user studies by non-technical participants. Given these energy and size constraints eWatch should provide the most computation and flexibility to allow an assortment of applications. The goal was to move beyond simple sensor logging and allow for online analysis that could query the user for feedback while collecting data or provide services to showcase context aware applications.
As I read through the paper, I found the features being embed in this device. eWatch can be used for applications such as context aware notification, elderly monitoring and fall detection, wrist PDA, or a universal interface to smart environments. The ability to sense and notify allows for a new variety of enhancements. For instance, much work has been done on fall detection for the elderly. Existing systems do not function appropriately when a patient loses consciousness and cannot press a button. Current automatic systems have a high rate of false positives. An eWatch system could sense if the user was in distress and then query to confirm that it is an emergency. If the user does not respond, then the eWatch could use its networked abilities to call for help. The use of online learning could profile a patient’s daily activity and notify a caretaker if a patient no longer performs their daily routines. The eWatch can also notify a patient when they should take certain medication.
I actually seen infomercials about some products that can be considered as “relatives” to this idea/product such as the bra that can sense if the user is in trouble base on her heart rate and the shoe that can count how far the runner has ran. For the bra, if her heart rate decline or pumps faster than normal then the sensor will send a signal of distress to the phone lines already given by the owner beforehand. All of these technology are pretty useful since its simple and yet very useful for the one who is using it. Its like buyingon object and actually getting two or more objects in return thus investing in these kinds of technology isn’t wasteful.
For both papers, the methodologies they used were correct (if I can say so, basing from the data they gathered from those methodologies), their topic were very interesting and the same time is useful directly to the user and to the environment. As for the paper construction, I can’t find anything wrong. Maybe because I am not really good at reviewing such documents or that these documents are really done well (given that they were published). As for references, I think it was already sufficient (if ten references are already enough for you..^^). Overall, the paper construction to those of these two papers is a bit different from what we were told to do. However, we have a different focus, or target audience that is why ours would be made a bit more detailed and at some parts lacking. Anyways, I hope we can finish our paper on time. ^^
credits:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/agr/pubpg/eWatch_bsn_06.pdf
Uwe Maurer, Anthony Rowe, Asim Smailagic, Daniel P. Siewiorek
http://www.healing-arts.org/mehl-madrona/mmpapers.htm
Lewis E. Mehl-Madrona, MD, PhD
Given that she only given a snapshot of the research studies mentioned above, I skimmed through the whole paper myself to gain more understanding of why it was done, how was it done and what was the outcome. Such action is important not only in reviewing documents but also to gain more knowledge in how to write my own research paper. In fact, its quite obvious that this task was given to us so as to observe and learn the important parts of writing a research paper of which we are to produce this semester.
Going back to Ms. Adarna’s entry, The first topic she assessed was the Faith in treatment influences efficacy among AIDS patients. The study was made determine the extent to which patients' faith in a treatment influences its effectiveness. To get the data needed for the study, one hundred forty men, requesting for an alternative therapy for AIDS, consisting of repeated injections of typhoid vaccine, were enrolled in a treatment program by a San Francisco AIDS Clinic and also agreed to participate in this independent study of other factors which might affect treatment efficacy. Patients were interviewed before entry into the protocol and at intervals of every 2 months for two years while in the protocol. The patient's "faith in treatment" was assessed at each contact. Clinic physicians made weekly ratings of the patients' sense of subjective improvement. CD4 cell count and white blood cell count were measured regularly.
At then end of the observation it was found that faith in treatment was associated with treatment efficiency. A fall in "faith in treatment" among those who initially responded very positively to the vaccine preceded by 4-6 months the development of a life-threatening infection and deterioration in clinical course. The ten patients who continued to respond to the vaccine at the end of one year and two years were those who continued to have a high "faith in treatment."
It was concluded that an effect of faith in treatment upon the course of AIDS was demonstrated. Faith may be important regardless of the efficacy of a treatment and may be the mediating variable which renders statistically ineffective treatments highly effective for those who believe in them.
Since we were asked to review the topics given, I hope my “personal reaction” to the study would be an accepted reply. Well, I believe in the findings of the study. How many people whose lives were endangered or already hung on a balance between life and death due to these chronic illnesses have survived and shared their love for God. God loving and trusting people do get well or feel better after talking to God. People who are suffering from illness renew their connections to God or make their bond with God more closely and this gives them the energy to fight for life that our Mighty Father has endowed all of us. When with God, giving up is visible, hence people tend to fight for life and leave everything to God. In some cases, people can get cured and yet they are ones who let themselves down, thinking that it would be impossible. It is with this kind of people where placebos are an alternative. Placebos are like faith. You give “sick” people faith, and hope and they will fight and positivity will reign. Being positive gives people power to cure themselves and dust themselves off. The study above has a nice topic since it shows results that people/hospitals can use to cure patients. It is very valuable for the people and the environment.
The second topic is, eWatch: A Wearable Sensor and Notification Platform. The idea behind it is already creative and fun since it gives attention to creating wearable computing. The eWatch needs to be small and energy efficient enough to allow for multiple day user studies by non-technical participants. Given these energy and size constraints eWatch should provide the most computation and flexibility to allow an assortment of applications. The goal was to move beyond simple sensor logging and allow for online analysis that could query the user for feedback while collecting data or provide services to showcase context aware applications.
As I read through the paper, I found the features being embed in this device. eWatch can be used for applications such as context aware notification, elderly monitoring and fall detection, wrist PDA, or a universal interface to smart environments. The ability to sense and notify allows for a new variety of enhancements. For instance, much work has been done on fall detection for the elderly. Existing systems do not function appropriately when a patient loses consciousness and cannot press a button. Current automatic systems have a high rate of false positives. An eWatch system could sense if the user was in distress and then query to confirm that it is an emergency. If the user does not respond, then the eWatch could use its networked abilities to call for help. The use of online learning could profile a patient’s daily activity and notify a caretaker if a patient no longer performs their daily routines. The eWatch can also notify a patient when they should take certain medication.
I actually seen infomercials about some products that can be considered as “relatives” to this idea/product such as the bra that can sense if the user is in trouble base on her heart rate and the shoe that can count how far the runner has ran. For the bra, if her heart rate decline or pumps faster than normal then the sensor will send a signal of distress to the phone lines already given by the owner beforehand. All of these technology are pretty useful since its simple and yet very useful for the one who is using it. Its like buyingon object and actually getting two or more objects in return thus investing in these kinds of technology isn’t wasteful.
For both papers, the methodologies they used were correct (if I can say so, basing from the data they gathered from those methodologies), their topic were very interesting and the same time is useful directly to the user and to the environment. As for the paper construction, I can’t find anything wrong. Maybe because I am not really good at reviewing such documents or that these documents are really done well (given that they were published). As for references, I think it was already sufficient (if ten references are already enough for you..^^). Overall, the paper construction to those of these two papers is a bit different from what we were told to do. However, we have a different focus, or target audience that is why ours would be made a bit more detailed and at some parts lacking. Anyways, I hope we can finish our paper on time. ^^
credits:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/agr/pubpg/eWatch_bsn_06.pdf
Uwe Maurer, Anthony Rowe, Asim Smailagic, Daniel P. Siewiorek
http://www.healing-arts.org/mehl-madrona/mmpapers.htm
Lewis E. Mehl-Madrona, MD, PhD
0 comments:
Post a Comment