Prevalence of childhood obesity
In reference to the PICOT question regarding the prevalence of childhood obesity, it is arguable that all the studies articles have reflected on the elements that were found to influence obesity in children. In this case, it is seen that social-economic factors, parental education, and nursing interventions, influence childhood obesity. This is one of the traits that has been confirmed by the four studies under different study settings. That is, in a summation, all studies have concluded social factors, parental education, nursing intervention, and economic factors such as income influence childhood obesity. Another similarity between the four articles is that all have a hypothesis attributed to the condition being tested. They have also engaged rigorous research inapproving the hypothesized attributes pertaining environmental factors and childhood obesity. Equally, the studies, both qualitative and quantitative, are empirical; that is, they have engaged detailed and measured statistics and non-numeric data that has a provable rationale. Moreover, all articles are systematic in terms of investigation. That is, they have a hypothesis and a problem of investigation whose results reflective their objectives. Again, in all studies, there are dependent and independent variables that are measurable and reliable. Further, all articles have a clinical implication. That is, they present a finding that can be used as a reference in evidence-based practice. Nonetheless, they all have a similar theme of proving that environmental factors influence childhood obesity.
Moreover, close analyses show that all the articles have a positive correlation between the independent variable and the independent variable. In extension, all the studies are have used instruments with operational definitions. This means that in each case, there has been a function that can be quantified either a behavior or a numeric value. It is also evident that all the four studies build on the previous research. This means that they have given more information and more explicit data concerning the research question being investigated in the PICOT tool.Lastly, all the articles have revealed some limitations associated with the research process. In this case, the limitations appear to validate the research while giving credit to the conclusions made. More openly, they have implied the reality of the research.
Differences
On the other hand, the four studies also exhibit some differences. Firstly, they all have a different hypothesis and purpose of the study. That is, they have a unique parameter of investigation. Also, the results vary across the studies and are based on what is investigated. For example, while one study shows the relationship between obesity and dominant discourse, the other one shows the relationship between parental intervention and improved children’s BMI. Also, it is notable that all studies use different instrument variables and methods of data analyses. For example, while quantitative study uses statistical analyses, qualitative studies are found to use comparisons and critical discourse analyses, among others. Moreover, setting in terms of year, population sample, and location of study differ across the studies and is subject to the hypothesis being tested. Further, the randomization process differs in all the four articles. This extends to population sample selection, inclusion criteria, and exclusion criteria. For example, while in quantitative article samples are excluded based on missing data, in qualitative like the meta-analysis study, exclusion criteria is based on duplication. Also,the application of findings in another subset data differs in one of the studies meaning that generalized findings cannot be sourced from all the studies. In addition, the four studies have different benefits and risks when linked to patient preferences or treatment. In fact, they don’t share a benefit or a risk associated with their application. Equally important, thearticles vary in their methodological criteria. Necessarily, this is evident from results, where some have both primary outcome and secondary outcome while the others have general results. It is also notable that presence of unusual phenomena is not common in all the articles. Similarly,not in all articles that participants are reported to have dropped during the study. Lastly, all studies have different operational definitions. This means that while some are defined based on numerical values, some have been defined based on behavior. Hence, the most explicit similarity is that all have had one theme of linking obesity with environmental factors. However, they differ in the research process, results, and data analyses, among others.