The article reported that there were no conflicts of interest or funding sources to proclaim. There does not seem to be any conflicts of interest between the sources of funding and the research findings due to the fact that the study was conducted by the Department of Neurology at Rabin Medical Center, which is a medical center that is associated with a university. Permission to allow patients to smoke cannabis were granted by the Israel Ministry of Health.
Which drug did they investigate? What was the cognitive, physical, or psychological effect they were investigating? What was the hypothesis? What was their rationale for that hypothesis (what background research led them to their hypothesis?
The study investigated the effect of cannabis on “motor and non-motor” characteristics in patients with Parkinson’s disease (Lotan et al., 2014, p. 41). While previous literature has demonstrated the remedial effects of cannabis on a variety of medical conditions, there is limited research on cannabis’s effect on motor functions that are disrupted by Parkinson’s disease. Due to the fact that the previous studies conducted on cannabis and Parkinson’s disease revealed contrasting results, the purpose of the study was to determine the effectiveness of cannabis on reducing the “motor and non-motor” side effects that are associated with Parkinson’s disease, in order to identify and clarify the relationship (Lotan et al., 2014, p. 41).
Describe their research methods (participants, research design, IVs, DVs)
The participants in this study consisted of 28 patients with Parkinson’s disease that were receiving treatment at clinic that specialized in providing therapy for motor functioning conditions (Lotan et al., 2014, p. 41). Due to ineffectiveness of their currently prescribed medications and treatments, participants were granted permission to incorporate the smoking of cannabis into their current therapy program. The participants in the study were not only required to smoke cannabis every day for over two months, but were also required to be able to withstand the drug without any abnormal or extreme symptoms. As a result of 6 participants being excluded from the study, because they were unable to withstand the symptoms of cannabis, this study consisted of a total of 22 participants (Lotan et al., 2014, p. 41).
In order to record a baseline rating of their condition, patients refrained from taking their morning dose of medication before the trial unless they were unable to avoid taking it. The “Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale, visual analog scale, present pain intensity scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, as well as Medical Cannabis Survey National Drug and Alcohol Research Center Questionnaire” were used to measure each patient’s condition both at baseline and after smoking cannabis (Lotan et al., 2014, p. 41). Following the completion of these tests at baseline, the patients smoked their normal dose of cannabis that they had been consuming for two months. After consumption of the cannabis, the tests performed at baseline were repeated and analyzed.
The independent variable in this study was the cannabis that each patient with Parkinson’s disease consumed. The dependent variable was the motor and non-motor symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease depended on the effect of the cannabis.
What did the researchers find and what did they conclude? What are the implications of this research?
Following the consumption of cannabis, patients with Parkinson’s disease experienced significant improvements in their “motor Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale score”, revealing that cannabis improved motor symptoms that are associated with Parkinson’s disease (Lotan et al., 2014, p. 42). Additionally, the researchers found that cannabis also improved non-motor side effects of Parkinson’s disease by enhancing sleep and alleviating pain scores. While the results of this study are enlightening, the researchers advised that further research regarding elimination of researcher bias, the use of a control group, and longer studies should be considered to identify additional factors and possible addictive qualities of cannabis.
This research provides valuable implications to patients that suffer from Parkinson’s disease. It can not only serve as a way to ease symptoms, but also serve as a conservative approach to treating the disease. From a personal experience as a physical therapy technician and working with a patient with Parkinson’s disease, I learned that the medications prescribed to treat Parkinson’s disease have many adverse side effects that often leave the patient feeling worse. Cannabis may be able to replace the numerous medications that are prescribed to patients, ultimately providing a more effective and remedial approach to treating Parkinson’s disease.
2. Find an article that focuses on people with ADHD or ADD. It’s important to have the right control group whenever one studies a disorder as it will impact the interpretation of the data.
APA Citation
Fried, R., Chan, J., Feinberg, L., Pope, A., Woodworth, K. Y., Faraone, S. V., & Biederman, J. (2016). Clinical correlates of working memory deficits in youth with and without ADHD: A controlled study. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 38(5), 487-496. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/10.1080/13803395.2015.1127
What hypothesis were they investigating? Did they believe that ADHD/ADD individuals have deficit or advantage in one domain? What was this domain (cognitive, social motor, etc.)? What was their rationale for this hypothesis?
While many studies have explored the relationship between working memory deficiencies and functioning in children with ADHD, limited research is available on the relationship between working memory deficiencies and functioning in children without ADHD (Fried et al, 2016). The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between working memory insufficiencies and cognitive functioning in children with and without ADHD. The authors of this study hypothesized that working memory deficiencies would hinder functioning in both children with and without ADHD. The rationale for this hypothesis includes the fact that working memory is essential to various functions, providing a reasoning behind the ability of altered or inhibited working memory to interfere with functions in both children with and without ADHD (Fried et al, 2016).
Describe their research methods (participants, research design, IVs, DVs). Pay special attention to the control group-what kinds of individuals did they compare the ADHD/ADD group with? Do you believe it was a good control group? Why or why not?
The participants used in this study were obtained from previously conducted controlled-studies that repeatedly evaluated the same families overtime at a university-based medical center (Fried et al, 2016). The participants consisted of males and females, including 276 ADHD children and 241 non-ADHD children (Fried et al, 2016). The children with ADHD were classified based on previous diagnoses’ at various clinics, while the children without ADHD showed no prior diagnosis of ADHD and were classified based on their regular checkup at a clinic.
The double-blind study involved performing a mental diagnosis and evaluation of each child, by conducting a variety of tests in the presence of both the child and their mother. Mental disorders and levels of functioning (social, family, intellectual, working memory, and overall) were evaluated using a variety of tests and diagnostic scales. The mother of each child reported educational and learning difficulties that the child had encountered. A statistical analysis was then performed and examined the relationship between working memory and functioning in the ADHD group and the control (non-ADHD) group (Fried et al, 2016). The ADHD group was compared to the control group that included children that did not have ADHD. This was an appropriate control group due to the fact that the purpose of the study was to determine the effect of working memory deficiencies on functioning in ADHD and non-ADHD children. The control group serves to determine if working memory deficiencies affect functioning in non-ADHD children and ADHD children, ultimately revealing if working memory deficiencies act independently from ADHD deficits.
The independent variable in this study was the working memory deficiencies in children with ADHD, and the control group was the working memory deficiencies in children without ADHD. The dependent variable was the level of functioning that was measured and depended on the working memory deficiency in children with and without ADHD.
What did the researchers find and what did they conclude? What are the implications of this research?
By assessing the relationship between insufficient working memory and functioning in children with ADHD and without ADHD, the researchers found that working memory deficiencies were more common in children with ADHD, and resulted in these children being significantly more likely to have academic difficulties than those without ADHD. While working memory weaknesses in children without ADHD were associated with functioning complications, the deficits did not significantly affect academic performance as it did in children with ADHD (Fried et al, 2016).
The research suggests that children should be evaluated early on in order to identify any working memory deficiencies that can impair various types of functioning. Identifying these complications early on can enable children to receive educational support in hopes to alleviate the impact of working memory deficiencies in both ADHD and non-ADHD children (Fried et al, 2016).
3. Find a peer-reviewed research article that describes how people with compromised emotions (due to brain injury or faulty wiring) make decisions.
APA Citation
Cooper, C. L., Phillips, L. H., Johnston, M., Radlak, B., Hamilton, S., & McLeod, M. J. (2014). Links between emotion perception and social participation restriction following stroke. Brain injury, 28(1), 122-126.
What is the nature of the deficit being explored in this article? Give the etiology of the deficit, explain what br