The document summarizes a research methods article based on the CONSORT guidelines. It finds that the article's introduction adequately describes the study aims and background but omits some details. The methods describe the trial design, sample characteristics, data collection and analysis appropriately but omit some elements like sample size calculations and blinding. The results report baseline data using tables and include inferential statistics like p-values. The discussion analyzes applicability and generalizability but omits limitations. Overall, the article follows many CONSORT guidelines but is missing some recommended elements.

1. HLTH2021 Research Methods
Answer:
Introduction
The introduction of the article conforms to the CONSORT item 2a and 2b. There is
comprehensive background information, including the literature review and the study's
aims, item 2a. The introduction has not provided the study's research questions against the
CONSORT item 2a. The study's target population is college students of Midwest University,
as provided in the introduction. However, the introduction has omitted the clinical reasons
that necessitate college students to be used as the target population. The introduction has
followed the CONSORT item 2a by providing the past literature review results. However,
there is minimal evidence and arguments based on the literature on the need for the new
research. A good background of the study should provide the results of the past literature
review and arguments and evidence based on it to show a need for new research.
Following CONSORT item 2b, the article's introduction has provided the aims and
hypothesis of the study. The study's purposes or objectives have been adequately described
in the last paragraph of the introduction as expected from item 2b of the CONSORT. The
introduction has not stated the hypothesis of the study but rather has just stated that ‘’we
stated the hypothesis that interventions of sleep education encourages change in sleep
behaviours and promotes sleep education’’. According to item 2b, the introduction has not
stated the specific question the new study intends to answer. The aims and objectives of the
study are essential to evidence-based practitioners since they enable them to come up with
better conclusions that lead to better patient care and allow them to advance their careers.
Methods
According to the article’s trial design, the methods show that the study was a randomised
controlled trial, evidenced by the groups' sizes in the results and subjects. The
characteristics of the sample in the article match the eligibility criteria conforming to item
4a and item 15 of the CONSORT. Tables have been used to show the baseline data and the
clinical characteristics of the sample. The sample size calculations have been omitted
against item 4a of the CONSORT. The description of the sample in methods is similar to the
descriptions that appear in the results. Consistent with item 14a, the sample size of each

2. group has been stated, for instance, both for the control and intervention group for
recruitment. The study's data collection was through questionnaires and analysed using
Pearson chi-square tests, which conforms to item 4b of the CONSORT.
However, the study omitted the locations where the data was collected, as stated in item 4b
of the CONSORT. Several pieces of equipment have been adequately used in the study that
enables the clinician and other evidence-based practitioners to evaluate the effectiveness of
the equipment when coming up with results that conform to item 5 of the CONSORT. The
methods used in the study is against item 5 and 11b since it has not provided treatment,
placebo, and control which are conditions for evaluating the interventions. Eligibility
measures and outcomes from items 6a and 6b have been described but are minimal. For
instance, the description of the sample is adequate in that it does not have more
explanation. There is minimal data collection data, but data analysis has been explicitly
described. Survey instruments have been adequately represented in the article, but not
much has been said on the survey process. The Chi-square test was used in the as in item 7a.
Randomisation, items 8a, 9, and 10 were used in developing the sample size, where
students were divided into control and intervention groups. Blinding was omitted in the
study, which is against item 11a; the students were not aware of the study's outcomes. IBM
SPSS software was used in the methods as in item12a; independent t-tests were employed
for group comparisons. No ethics have been mentioned in the methods against items 7b and
14b. The study omitted flow diagrams to show the participant flow, items 13a, 13b, and 16;
instead, a table was used.
Results
Tables have been used in the study to show the baseline data and the clinical characteristics
for each group; this is consistent with items 15 and 4a. Several tables have been used. For
example, table 2 shows continuous baseline variables and other tables from table 3 to 6. The
use of numerical values in the study has facilitated confidence intervals and apparent
standard deviations for each group. There are inferential results in p values, conforming to
item 17a. No binary outcomes are evident in the study against item 17b of the CONSORT. No
qualitative findings have been reported; instead, the study employed quantitative research
and analysis, implying that the study's findings were quantitative. The study participants
experienced no harm or unexpected events; thus no need to mention them in the study,
item 19.
Discussion
Since this is a clinical intervention, Applicability And Generalisability are vital, and the
results have been discussed in detail, item 21. The study results and discussion are
consistent, making it easy for the evidence-based practitioners to develop better care for
their patients. The study did not mention the trial limitation against item 20 of the
CONSORT. No sources of funding have been acknowledged in the study, item 25. Funding is

3. a minor part of the article and other assignments that follow the same procedure. Thus, it is
omitted from most assignments unless there is the harm of conflicts of interest that appear
as validity threats and necessitate clear evidence.
References
Hershner, S., & O’Brien, L. M. (2018). The impact of a randomised sleep education
intervention for college students. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 13(3), 337-347
Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. for the CONSORT Group. (2010). CONSORT 2010
Statement: Updated guidelines for parallel reporting group randomised trials. BMJ, 340,
c332.