| Course | HS305 Research Methods for Health Sciences |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion board post |
| Length | About 410 words, 2 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 discussion post |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS305 Unit 1
Who Becomes a Gardener? A Unit 1 Discussion Post Tracing a Dementia Headline Back to a Cohort Study That Cannot Say Cuts
HS305 · Unit 1 Discussion Board Post
Posted by [Student Name]
The headline, study and figures are composite and shown as placeholders; the methods literature cited is real.
Initial Post
The headline: "Gardening cuts dementia risk by a third." Here is the study behind it, as best I can rebuild it from the article. Researchers enrolled [4,000] adults over sixty and asked whether they gardened. They followed everyone for [eight] years through health records and counted new dementia diagnoses. Gardeners were diagnosed less often.
That is a cohort study, and it shows an association. The headline's verb, cuts, claims a cause. Four problems sit between the two.
Who gardens. People did not get assigned to gardening; they chose it. Gardening goes with things that are themselves linked to brain health: being mobile enough to kneel and dig, having a yard, having the income to own one, having company outdoors. Any of these could explain the difference, which is the problem of confounding (Grimes & Schulz, 2002).
Which came first. Memory decline starts years before a dementia diagnosis. Someone in that early stage may give up a hobby that takes planning and steps to remember. If so, the illness ended the gardening, not the other way around. A large cohort found that the apparent protective link between activity and dementia faded when the years just before diagnosis were examined separately (Sabia et al., 2017).
What a third means. A reduction of a third sounds large. In absolute terms, using the article's figures, it is roughly [9] in 100 non-gardeners and [6] in 100 gardeners diagnosed over the follow-up. Three people in a hundred is meaningful, but it is a different sentence.
The study can say gardeners were diagnosed less often; only an experiment could say that gardening was the reason.
What a fair headline would say: "Older adults who garden are diagnosed with dementia less often, study finds." It is duller and true. My question for the class: is there any version of this study, short of randomly assigning people to garden, that could support cuts?
Reply to Jordan
Jordan, your headline on coffee and liver disease has the same structure as mine. Did the article say whether the coffee drinkers differed in alcohol use? That one variable could carry most of the effect.
References
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002). Bias and causal associations in observational research. The Lancet, 359(9302), 248-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07451-2
Sabia, S., Dugravot, A., Dartigues, J.-F., Abell, J., Elbaz, A., Kivimäki, M., & Singh-Manoux, A. (2017). Physical activity, cognitive decline, and risk of dementia: 28 year follow-up of Whitehall II cohort study. BMJ, 357, j2709. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j2709
Reading the HS 305 Unit 1 instructions
The first unit usually asks you to find a health claim in the news, locate the study behind it and explain whether the claim follows from the research. The opening post often runs between 350 and 500 words, and two or more peer responses are commonly required. Instructors look for the study design named correctly, at least one specific reason the design cannot support the claim, and some attention to numbers rather than adjectives. Many sections want the original study cited, not just the news story. A strong post ends by proposing wording the evidence would allow and by asking peers something they can answer from their own example. Keep a conversational register, since this is a discussion, but cite the methods source you lean on in APA style.
How this HS305 Unit 1 example is built
The post opens by quoting the headline and rebuilding the study from what the article reports, with bracketed figures standing in for the cohort's size and follow-up. It names the design as a cohort and separates association from cause in two sentences. Four short paragraphs then work through the problems: self-selection into gardening and the traits that travel with it, reverse causation as dementia's early stage ends a demanding hobby, the gap between a relative third and three people in a hundred, and what the verb cuts asserts. The highlighted sentence states what the study can and cannot say. A rewritten headline and an open question for the class end the initial post, and the reply to Jordan applies the same lens to coffee in two sentences.
HS305 Unit 1 rubric: what earns full points
Discussion posts in this course are usually marked across four areas, namely the substance of the argument, sourcing, peer interaction and mechanics, with substance holding the largest share of the points. Content credit goes to posts that name the design accurately and explain specifically why it falls short of the claim, rather than repeating that correlation is not causation. Evidence credit rewards citing a methods source and, where possible, the original study. Peer engagement points are earned by replies that ask a pointed question or add a consideration the classmate missed, not by agreement alone. Mechanics covers APA citations, clear paragraphs and staying near the word target. Posts that convert a relative risk into absolute numbers tend to stand out, because few students do it.
HS305 Unit 1 help: mistakes that cost points
The most frequent problem is critiquing the news article's tone without identifying the study design at all. Another is stopping at confounding and missing reverse causation, which matters a great deal for any condition with a long preclinical phase. Some students accept the relative reduction as stated and never ask how many people it describes. Others pick a headline whose study is behind a paywall and end up guessing at the methods. A reply that offers only praise adds nothing a grader can reward. If your section's prompt points to a different claim, say a supplement or a screen time story, send it along and we can trace that headline to its study and its design in the same way.
Get an HS305 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Everything in Unit 1 hangs on a news claim, assigned or chosen; share it with the exact prompt and your rubric. The underlying study is located and cited, the argument runs from its methods, and replies come drafted where the section requires them. Ready in 24-48h, with the first custom sample free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HS305 papers and BS in Health Science samples
- HS305 Unit 2: Article Summary
- HS305 Unit 3: Source Evaluation
- HS305 Unit 4: Research Question Draft
- HS305 Unit 5: Database Search Log
- HS305 Unit 6: Study Design Comparison
- HS305 Unit 7: Seminar Reflection
- HS305 Unit 8: Sampling and Measurement Plan
- HS305 Unit 9: Article Critique
- HS305 Unit 10: Research Proposal Outline
- HS292 Unit 1: Coding Temptations Discussion Post
- HS290 Unit 1: Patient Access Role Discussion Post
- HS230 Unit 1: Health Care Setting Discussion Post
- HS215 Unit 1: Coverage Type Discussion Post
HS305 Unit 1 questions, answered
Does the post need to find the original study?
Most HS305 sections expect it, because the argument depends on what the study did rather than what the story said about it. A library database or the journal named in the article usually leads to the original. If the prompt supplies a news item without a traceable study, the post says so and argues from what the report reveals about the design.
Is an observational study worthless for a question like this?
No. Cohorts are often the only feasible way to study long-term exposures, and a consistent association across several well-run cohorts is real evidence. What an observational design cannot do alone is rule out explanations such as self-selection. The post's corrected headline keeps the finding and changes only the verb, which is the balance many graders look for.
How should the news claim be chosen if the prompt leaves it open?
Pick one where the original research is easy to reach and the design is clearly described, so the post can argue from the methods rather than guess at them. Health stories about diet, exercise and hobbies are plentiful, and many rest on observational data, which gives the post something concrete to test. Claims whose only source is a press release are best avoided.
Where can I find a free HS305 Unit 1 sample paper?
The full Unit 1 post sits on this page, tracing a gardening and dementia headline back to the cohort design behind it, with a reply.
What is reverse causation in a health news claim?
Reverse causation means the outcome, or the first stage of it, produces the exposure rather than the other way round. Early memory decline can lead someone to stop gardening, which makes gardeners look protected.