Health Care Research
The critiques of two articles reporting on health care research are reported in this report. The first of these articles concerned occupational lead poisoning, while the second articles concerned efforts to curtail the smoking of tobacco. The critique of each article is presented separately, and a brief contrast and comparison of the two articles is made in the concluding section of the report.
The article critiqued in relation to occupational lead poisoning was “Occupational Lead Poisoning in Ohio: Surveillance Using Workers’ Compensation Data” (Seligman, Haplerin, Mullan, and Frazier, 1986, pp. 12991302). The article is critiqued within the contexts of problem, purpose, subjects, procedure, findings, and reaction.
Occupational heavy metal poisoning was a serious problem in the United States, and lead, arsenic, and zinc poisoning in the workplace was, at the time this article was published in the mid1980s, expected to be eliminated by 1990 (Seligman, Haplerin, Mullan, and Frazier, 1986, p. 1299). The problem confronting those authorities responsible for occupational health, however, was no surveillance system existed in the mid1980s that would permit an accurate assessment of the extent to which lead poisoning was being controlled in the American workplace (Seligman, Haplerin, Mullan, and Frazier, 1986, p. 1299). Proposals had been made to use workers’ compensation claims as a
component of such a surveillance system (Seligman, Haplerin, Mullan, and Frazier, 1986, p. 1299).
Workers’ compensation claims had long been used to derive epidemiologic data related to occupationallyrelated back injuries, but researchers feared that certain limitations of workers’ compensation data would compromise the usefulness of such data in the surveillance of occupational lead poisoning (Seligman, Haplerin, Mullan, and Frazier, 1986, p. 1299). The fear was that some physicians would fail to recognize lead poisoning as a cause of oc…