In legitimate studies, testing comes at the very beginning before anything is done and sometimes nothing is done, depending on the type of study.
One example of a study is the study for Alzheimer's. The first thing researchers do is give each participant a memory test. Then comes the intervention, whatever it may be. Also, there's a control group that gets no active ingredient or intervention. Then at the end of a year they repeat the same memory test and compare one group with the other to see if the intervention had any value. It's a double-blind study so that the participants don't know whether they're getting a placebo or the active ingredient. Not even the person who hands out the pills would know. This is to keep participants from being unduly influenced.
An example of a poorly designed study is where the participants are highly influenced, as in The Villages Health Study.
What they should have done is take a survey before they did anything at all - no lectures, no slogans, no telling people they would be compared with other communities to see who's the healthiest. They should have simply sent out a letter announcing The Villages/USF Health Alliance. A simple statement that they hope to achieve some helpful suggestions/innovations for better health care in The Villages would have been sufficient.
Then they could have said: "In order for us to know where we need to concentrate our attention, we ask everyone to please complete the enclosed health survey. It's very important and we thank you in advance."
Then at the end of X number of years, perhaps five, they could retest to see what health improvements have been achieved, if any.
|