User talk:Fdias2/sandbox

A central finding of the study was that, across race and social class differences, factors associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease did so equally for blacks and whites whether the risk factors were considered singly or in combination. CHD incidence remained markedly higher for white Evans County residents. The only social grouping of white residents that had equally low incidence of CHD was white sharecroppers, which was attributed to higher rates of physical activity among sharecroppers when compared to whites of higher socioeconomic status.

A strength of the study was the high response rate of the population in its entirety, one of only two of its kind to successfully examine an entire community. The publication of the initial study results did not include statistical analysis. Hames attributes his decision to avoid statistical analysis to the unique design of the study. He wrote, “…it certainly is not clear to us [the investigators] what differences such tests could make in our interpretations in the context of this study… the population over 40 does not constitute a sample of some universe. They are a universe.”

Peer Review

Hi Felipe!

Your section on the Evans County Heart Study had a lot of significant information. You only had one cited source, maybe you could cite more sources in your first paragraph. In addition, perhaps you could go more in depth with the results. From my background knowledge, there was more to the results than just socioeconomic status and physical activity. I did love how you ended your section with a quote. The problem is that I have no idea who wrote that quote. You stated "He wrote...". Who wrote what? In addition, maybe you could explain or have a "{word) for the word CHD. I believe a good portion of your audience would not understand what a CHD is.

Amia Ni Le (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)