| Course | HS305 Research Methods for Health Sciences |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Article summary |
| Length | About 630 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health Science |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS305 Unit 2
What the Survey Found and What the Authors Concluded: A Unit 2 Article Summary of a Dog Ownership and Walking Study in Older Adults
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS305: Research Methods for Health Sciences
Unit 2 Article Summary
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The article, authors and figures are composite and shown as placeholders; the review and methods sources cited are real.
Citation
[Author, A. A.], & [Author, B. B.]. ([Year]). Dog ownership and walking among community-dwelling older adults: A cross-sectional survey. [Journal Name], [volume]([issue]), [pages]. [DOI]
Purpose
The authors aimed to describe whether older adults who own dogs walk more than those who do not, and whether any difference holds after accounting for age, health and neighborhood.
Methods
The study was a cross-sectional mailed survey of adults aged sixty-five and over, drawn at random from a regional voter list in [three] counties. Of [4,200] people mailed, [1,500] returned usable surveys, a response rate of about [36] percent. Dog ownership was a yes or no question. Walking was measured with a short self-report questionnaire asking about minutes of walking in the past seven days. The analysis compared owners and non-owners with regression models that adjusted for age, sex, self-rated health, chronic conditions and a neighborhood walkability score.
Results
About [27] percent of respondents owned a dog. Owners reported a median of [210] minutes of walking per week, compared with [120] for non-owners. After adjustment, owners were about [1.6] times as likely to meet the recommended 150 minutes per week (95 percent confidence interval [1.3] to [2.0]). Most of the extra walking was walking the dog. Owners who reported poor health walked about as little as non-owners in poor health.
Strengths the Authors Can Claim
The sample was drawn at random from a population list rather than recruited through dog clubs or clinics, which makes it more representative than many studies on the topic. The adjustment for neighborhood walkability addresses an obvious alternative explanation, since people in walkable areas may both walk more and find dog ownership easier. The confidence interval is reasonably narrow. These strengths make the association credible; they do not turn it into a cause.
Authors' Conclusions
The authors concluded that dog ownership increases walking among older adults and suggested that programs encouraging pet adoption could raise activity levels in this population. They noted the cross-sectional design as a limitation in one sentence.
The survey found that owners walked more; it could not show that getting a dog made anyone walk more, because it measured both at one moment in people who had chosen whether to own a dog.
The Distance Between Findings and Conclusions
The findings support an association. The conclusion claims a cause and recommends an intervention. Three features of the design stand in between. First, people who are already healthy and active may be the ones who choose to own dogs, and the authors' own result for poor health hints at this. Second, a single survey cannot show what came first. Third, walking was self-reported, and dog owners may estimate their walking differently from others. A review of the evidence on dog ownership and activity reached a similar caution, calling for longitudinal and intervention studies before recommending dog acquisition (Christian et al., 2013). Distinguishing a cross-sectional association from a causal claim is one of the basic tasks of reading research (Grimes & Schulz, 2002b). The fairer conclusion is that older dog owners walk more, and that a trial or a cohort following new owners would be needed to say why.
Use for My Topic
The study is useful as background on what predicts walking in older adults, and its walkability adjustment is a model worth noting (Grimes & Schulz, 2002a). It is not evidence for a pet adoption program.
References
Christian, H. E., Westgarth, C., Bauman, A., Richards, E. A., Rhodes, R. E., Evenson, K. R., Mayer, J. A., & Thorpe, R. J., Jr. (2013). Dog ownership and physical activity: A review of the evidence. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 10(5), 750-759. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.10.5.750
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002a). An overview of clinical research: The lay of the land. The Lancet, 359(9300), 57-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07283-5
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002b). Bias and causal associations in observational research. The Lancet, 359(9302), 248-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07451-2
The Purdue Global HS305 Unit 2 instructions
Unit 2 typically asks for a structured summary of one research article, often between two and three pages, with the full reference at the top. Instructors want the purpose, design, sample, measures, analysis and main results reported in your own words, with numbers where the article gives them. Most sections ask you to keep evaluation out of the summary proper, or to confine it to a final section, so the reader can see exactly what the authors did. The point many students miss is the request to compare the findings with the conclusions; that comparison is where the course begins teaching critique. Paraphrase rather than quote, report the response rate, and name the statistical comparison in plain language instead of copying the table.
Inside the HS305 Unit 2 example
A bracketed reference template opens the paper, since the survey is a composite and its journal details are placeholders. Purpose comes next in one sentence. The methods paragraph names the design, the random draw from a voter list in three counties, the response rate, the yes or no ownership item, the seven-day walking questionnaire and the adjusted regression. Results report ownership prevalence, median walking minutes in each group, the adjusted odds of meeting 150 minutes with its interval, and the detail that owners in poor health walked no more than anyone else. A section on strengths credits the population sampling and the walkability adjustment. The authors' conclusion follows, then the highlighted sentence and a closing paragraph setting out three gaps, plus a short note on how the study could still serve a student's topic.
HS305 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
Article summaries are generally marked on accuracy, completeness, separation of description from evaluation, paraphrasing and APA form. Accuracy carries the most weight: a summary that misreports the design or the main result loses points no matter how well it reads. Completeness means every core element appears, including the response rate and how the outcome was measured. Separation is the distinctive skill in this course, so a summary that slips opinion into the methods paragraph usually drops a level, while a clearly fenced comparison section earns credit. Paraphrasing is checked against the source, and long quotations count against you. The reference must be complete and match the citation in the text. Short, labeled sections make each of these easy for a grader to find.
Common HS305 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A common mistake is reporting the authors' conclusion as if it were a result, which erases the very distinction the unit tests. Another is leaving out the response rate, even though a mailed survey with about a third responding needs that number in front of the reader. Some students list every variable from the regression table and lose the main finding in detail. Others evaluate throughout, calling the study weak in the methods paragraph before describing it. Copying the abstract with light edits is easy to spot and is usually treated as weak paraphrase. If your assigned article is a trial, a qualitative study or a different survey, send the citation and we can help you summarize it with findings and conclusions kept apart.
Get an HS305 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Whichever article Unit 2 assigns, a copy or even the full citation will do if it sits behind a paywall; add the instructions and the rubric. Methods and results are summarized before the conclusions, in the citation style the course requires, and the gap between them is marked. Delivery takes 24-48h, and a first custom sample is 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 1: Health News Claim Discussion Post
- 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 2: Gout Visit Record Abstraction
- HS290 Unit 2: Patient Access Skills Self-Assessment
- HS230 Unit 2: Type 1 Diabetes Delivery System
- HS215 Unit 2: Insurance Plan Comparison
HS305 Unit 2 questions, answered
Should an article summary include my opinion?
Only where the prompt asks for it, and then in a clearly separate section. Many HS305 summaries are graded on description alone, and evaluation mixed into the methods or results paragraphs costs points. The sample keeps its single evaluative paragraph at the end and labels it, so a grader can see where reporting stops and judgment begins.
How long should the methods paragraph be?
Long enough to include design, setting, participants, how the key variables were measured and the response or retention rate. For most undergraduate summaries that is a substantial paragraph rather than a sentence. If your word limit is tight, shorten the introduction and discussion before the methods, since the methods are what the assignment is testing your ability to read.
What if the article is a randomized trial instead of a survey?
The structure holds and the details change. A trial summary reports how participants were randomized, whether anyone was blinded, how many completed follow-up and what the primary outcome was. The distance between results and conclusion may be smaller, since randomization supports causal wording, but it still exists wherever the authors generalize beyond the people and setting they studied.
Where can I find a free HS305 Unit 2 sample paper?
You can read the full Unit 2 article summary here; it separates a dog ownership survey's results from its authors' recommendation.
Why does the summary keep the authors' conclusion in its own section?
Because the unit is teaching you to see that a conclusion is a claim about the findings, not one of them. Keeping it separate lets a reader check whether the data support it.