| Course | HLTH 8560E Advanced Analysis of Secondary Data |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 8 |
| Paper type | Results section |
| Length | About 560 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8560E Week 8
Results: Moderate or Greater Depressive Symptoms and Poor Glycemic Control Among U.S. Adults With Diagnosed Diabetes, NHANES 2011-2018, Reported in Weighted Estimates With Intervals and the File's Scope Attached
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 8560E: Advanced Analysis of Secondary Data
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Results: Moderate or Greater Depressive Symptoms and Poor Glycemic Control Among U.S. Adults With Diagnosed Diabetes, NHANES 2011-2018, Reported in Weighted Estimates With Intervals and the File's Scope Attached
Analytic Group
The analysis included 2,663 adults aged 20 and older with diagnosed diabetes who were examined in NHANES between 2011 and 2018 with both a measured glycohemoglobin and all nine PHQ-9 items answered (Week 6 derivation). Weighted to the civilian noninstitutionalized population, their mean age was 60.4 years, and 27.1% reported current insulin use. Estimates describe that population over that period and no other, and they are reported in the order the STROBE statement sets for cross-sectional studies (von Elm et al., 2007).
Main Estimates
Among U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes in 2011-2018, an estimated 12.3% (95% CI [10.7, 14.1]) had PHQ-9 totals at or above 10, indicating at least moderate depressive symptoms in the two weeks before the examination.
Adults with moderate or greater symptoms were more often above 9.0% than those without, 18.4% against 14.0%, but the interval for the difference runs from 1.8 points lower to 10.7 points higher and includes no difference. Mean glycohemoglobin was 0.23 points higher in the symptom group, with an interval that also crosses zero. The direction matches the meta-analytic association reported by Lustman et al. (2000), while the precision of this pooled national sample does not rule out a null difference.
Table 1
Glycemic Measures by Depressive Symptom Group, Adults With Diagnosed Diabetes, NHANES 2011-2018
| Measure | PHQ-9 of 10 or more (n = 369) | PHQ-9 under 10 (n = 2,294) | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glycohemoglobin 9.0% or more, % (95% CI) | 18.4 (13.0-24.9) | 14.0 (12.0-16.2) | 4.4 points (-1.8 to 10.7) | |
| Glycohemoglobin under 7.0%, % (95% CI) | 46.2 (38.5-54.1) | 52.2 (48.7-55.6) | | |
| Mean glycohemoglobin, % (95% CI) | 7.54 (7.30-7.79) | 7.31 (7.22-7.41) | 0.23 (-0.03 to 0.50) | |
Weighted with pooled examination weights; proportions use Korn-Graubard intervals and differences use linearized t intervals on 62 degrees of freedom. All estimates met the reporting rule.
Subgroups
Among adults aged 20 to 44 with moderate or greater symptoms, the estimate is suppressed because its interval was wider than 30 percentage points, as the reporting rule requires (Parker et al., 2017). Among adults aged 65 and older in 2011-2018, poor control was more common in the symptom group, 15.4% against 8.2%, though the wide interval for the smaller group overlaps the other. Among insulin users, 36.1% of those with symptoms were above 9.0%, compared with 24.1% of those without. No difference appeared among adults not using insulin.
Table 2
Glycohemoglobin 9.0% or More by Symptom Group Within Subgroups, % (95% CI)
| Subgroup | PHQ-9 of 10 or more | PHQ-9 under 10 | |
|---|---|---|
| Age 20-44 | Suppressed: interval wider than 30 points (n = 44) | 21.2 (14.9-28.9) | |
| Age 45-64 | 18.4 (11.0-28.1) | 17.3 (14.1-20.8) | |
| Age 65 or older | 15.4 (7.8-26.4) | 8.2 (6.1-10.7) | |
| Current insulin use | 36.1 (24.1-49.7) | 24.1 (20.2-28.4) | |
| No insulin use | 9.2 (4.6-16.3) | 10.4 (8.1-13.0) | |
Suppression follows the NCHS presentation standards for proportions; estimates near the 130% relative width limit, such as 9.2% among adults not using insulin, should be read with caution.
What These Results Do Not Say
Each figure describes a single examination visit. None shows whether symptoms preceded high glycohemoglobin, and none applies to nursing home residents, who are outside the sampled population. The constraints memo traces each of these limits to the sentence it shaped.
References
Lustman, P. J., Anderson, R. J., Freedland, K. E., de Groot, M., Carney, R. M., & Clouse, R. E. (2000). Depression and poor glycemic control: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Diabetes Care, 23(7), 934-942. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.23.7.934
Parker, J. D., Talih, M., Malec, D. J., Beresovsky, V., Carroll, M., Gonzalez, J. F., Jr., Hamilton, B. E., Ingram, D. D., Kochanek, K., McCarty, F., Moriarity, C., Shimizu, I., Strashny, A., & Ward, B. W. (2017). National Center for Health Statistics data presentation standards for proportions (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 175). National Center for Health Statistics.
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet, 370(9596), 1453-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
What the HLTH 8560E Week 8 instructions ask for
Students report the results of their secondary analysis in the form of a journal results section. Faculty expect weighted estimates with confidence intervals, unweighted counts where they help a reader judge precision, and a clear statement of the population and period every estimate describes. The main comparison should be reported with its interval in words as well as in a table, so a nonsignificant difference is not mistaken for a finding or for no difference. Subgroup results should follow the reporting rule set in the analysis plan, with any suppressed estimates shown and explained. Interpretation belongs mostly in the discussion, though a short note on what the results cannot show is often welcome. Tables should carry notes on weights and interval methods.
How the HLTH 8560E Week 8 example is put together
The section opens with the analytic group of 2,663 adults, their weighted mean age and insulin use, and a sentence fixing the scope, citing von Elm and colleagues for the order in which observational results are given. The main estimate of symptom prevalence follows with its interval. Table 1 compares the two symptom groups on three glycemic measures, with a note on weights, Korn-Graubard intervals and degrees of freedom. A paragraph reports the 4.4-point difference and its interval in words, citing Lustman and colleagues for the expected direction. Table 2 gives subgroup estimates with one suppressed cell, and the paragraph after it explains the suppression using Parker and colleagues. A short closing section states what the figures do not show.
Reading the HLTH 8560E Week 8 rubric
Accuracy and scope carry the most weight. Faculty check that each estimate is weighted, that intervals are reported and that the population and period are attached to the findings, since a number without its scope invites overreach. Reporting a difference whose interval includes zero honestly, without calling it a significant association or claiming no relationship, is a major point of assessment. Credit rises when subgroup estimates follow the reporting rule from the analysis plan and suppressed cells are shown with reasons. Clear tables with methods notes earn credit. Faculty mark down interpretation that drifts into causal language or recommendations within the results. Consistency with the derivation and analysis plan, such as matching counts and degrees of freedom, shows the work holds together across weeks.
HLTH 8560E Week 8 help: mistakes that cost marks
Results sections often report percentages without intervals or describe a nonsignificant gap as if it were a finding. Both misstate what the data show. To write a stronger section, open with who your estimates describe, including the period and the population the survey sampled. Report every estimate with its interval. For your main comparison, write the difference and its interval in a full sentence and say plainly whether it excludes zero. Build tables with notes naming the weight and interval method. Apply your reporting rule to every subgroup, and print suppressed cells with the reason instead of dropping them. Keep interpretation brief. Check your counts against your derivation. If your own analysis needs a results section written to this standard, our team can prepare one from your output.
Get a HLTH 8560E Week 8 example written to your instructions
Upload the Week 8 prompt and rubric plus your planned estimates or output. The results section, with two tables, a figure and scope written into every finding, is returned in 24-48h, and the first carries no charge. Its figures are round inventions for display; every estimate in yours has to be produced by your own run.
More HLTH 8560E papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8560E Week 1: Dataset Orientation Post
- HLTH 8560E Week 2: Dataset Selection Memo
- HLTH 8560E Week 3: Codebook Review
- HLTH 8560E Week 4: Survey Round Discussion Post
- HLTH 8560E Week 5: Analytic Variable Map
- HLTH 8560E Week 6: Analytic Sample Derivation
- HLTH 8560E Week 7: Survey Analysis Plan
- HLTH 8560E Week 9: Recode Peer Replies
- HLTH 8560E Week 10: Data Constraints Memo
- HLTH 8560E Week 11: Journal Manuscript Draft
- HLTH 8551 Week 8: Qualitative Method Rationale
- HLTH 8475 Week 8: Rival Explanations Post
- HLTH 8402 Week 8: Language Access Discussion Post
- HLTH 8392 Week 8: Flood Story Narrative Brief
HLTH 8560E Week 8 questions, answered
Should unweighted counts appear alongside weighted percentages?
Yes, in most sections. The unweighted count tells a reader how many respondents stand behind an estimate, which the weighted percentage conceals. A weighted figure resting on a handful of people looks as solid as one resting on thousands. Reporting both, clearly labeled, lets readers judge precision and matches the practice of reports built from national surveys.
Can the results section mention limitations?
Briefly, where a limit changes how a specific number should be read, such as a flagged estimate or a population restriction. The full treatment belongs in the constraints memo or the discussion. What the rubric rewards is scope inside the finding, not a paragraph of general caveats; a reader should never have to leave the sentence to learn what it covers.
How should a nonsignificant difference be reported?
Exactly as a significant one would be, figure and interval together, and never as no difference. An interval spanning both no association and a meaningful one says the file leaves both possibilities open. The results section reports that plainly and leaves interpretation to the discussion. Dropping nonsignificant comparisons from the table would misrepresent what the plan specified in advance.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8560E Week 8 sample paper?
The complete Week 8 results section is on this page, reporting weighted NHANES 2011-2018 estimates of depressive symptoms and poor glycemic control with intervals, scope and one suppressed subgroup cell, with three references.
Is the 4.4-point difference a significant finding?
Its 95% interval runs from 1.8 points lower to 10.7 points higher, so it includes no difference. The section reports the direction and the interval together and does not claim either an association or its absence.