1a.
The title of the article is ‘Are Pet Owners Really at Greater Risk of Cancer?’ The source of the study is from the website ‘Psychology Today’ under ‘Animal Behavior’. The research included in the article is from the University of Arizona.
1b. The study by University of Arizona was conducted via existing medical data collected from a project called ‘Women’s Health Initiative (WHI)’. This data included medical data from over 120,000 women. The research team wanted to investigate the chances of pet owners developing cancer versus the chances of cancer for individuals who do not own pets. Their initial hypothesis was that pet owners do have a higher risk of cancer because they contract diseases that are harmful to humans such as Lyme disease, …show more content…
This study would be more effective if it were done on men and women rather than just women. The title of the article is, “Are Pet Owners Really at Greater Risk of Cancer”. Due to its ambiguity, this title makes people assume that the article is about both men and women, however, the title is misleading to what the study provided in the article is. Although some women get cancer from “owning pets”, and does not particularity mean that it is the only way of getting cancer. There are many factors for an individual to get cancer such as genetic factors, environmental factors, and personal habits such as smoking. Also, the article stated that people who owned animals exercised less, smoked more cigarettes and had higher body mass index’s than individuals who didn’t own any pets. In the article it also states that the statistics of this study is “under powered” because there is not a large enough sample population to confirm the hypothesis. The study involved only 42000 women who owned pets and 82000 who did not. This portrays how the number of participants is not an equal number, thus the results would be …show more content…
Men were not included in this study, which removes half of all gender in this study; only testing on women cannot conclude that pet owners don’t get cancer at all or are a lower risk. Another big factor is that only 42000 of pet owning participants were in the study, while there were 82000 non-pet owning women. This eliminates the findings are not validated or dependable because there is simply not enough research conducted or participants taking part in this study (sampling data). Another limitation in this study is the medical history behind these women; researchers did not check whether any of the women in the study have other risks of cancer besides owning pets. Possible improvements that can be made in this study is that the study should be conducted on both men and women; this ways the results would be valid and not gender bias; it would not discriminate one gender from the other. Another way of improvement is to have a larger sampling population for individuals who do or do not own pets; this also includes an even distribution sampling done between pet owners and non-pet owners. This would eliminate the bias factor in this
The title of the article is ‘Are Pet Owners Really at Greater Risk of Cancer?’ The source of the study is from the website ‘Psychology Today’ under ‘Animal Behavior’. The research included in the article is from the University of Arizona.
1b. The study by University of Arizona was conducted via existing medical data collected from a project called ‘Women’s Health Initiative (WHI)’. This data included medical data from over 120,000 women. The research team wanted to investigate the chances of pet owners developing cancer versus the chances of cancer for individuals who do not own pets. Their initial hypothesis was that pet owners do have a higher risk of cancer because they contract diseases that are harmful to humans such as Lyme disease, …show more content…
This study would be more effective if it were done on men and women rather than just women. The title of the article is, “Are Pet Owners Really at Greater Risk of Cancer”. Due to its ambiguity, this title makes people assume that the article is about both men and women, however, the title is misleading to what the study provided in the article is. Although some women get cancer from “owning pets”, and does not particularity mean that it is the only way of getting cancer. There are many factors for an individual to get cancer such as genetic factors, environmental factors, and personal habits such as smoking. Also, the article stated that people who owned animals exercised less, smoked more cigarettes and had higher body mass index’s than individuals who didn’t own any pets. In the article it also states that the statistics of this study is “under powered” because there is not a large enough sample population to confirm the hypothesis. The study involved only 42000 women who owned pets and 82000 who did not. This portrays how the number of participants is not an equal number, thus the results would be …show more content…
Men were not included in this study, which removes half of all gender in this study; only testing on women cannot conclude that pet owners don’t get cancer at all or are a lower risk. Another big factor is that only 42000 of pet owning participants were in the study, while there were 82000 non-pet owning women. This eliminates the findings are not validated or dependable because there is simply not enough research conducted or participants taking part in this study (sampling data). Another limitation in this study is the medical history behind these women; researchers did not check whether any of the women in the study have other risks of cancer besides owning pets. Possible improvements that can be made in this study is that the study should be conducted on both men and women; this ways the results would be valid and not gender bias; it would not discriminate one gender from the other. Another way of improvement is to have a larger sampling population for individuals who do or do not own pets; this also includes an even distribution sampling done between pet owners and non-pet owners. This would eliminate the bias factor in this