LIVE Program: Quantitative Article Critique

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. Mitchel et al. (2018) address the CVD problem among rural African Americans (AA). The study predicts that poor nutrition and inadequate physical activity are the leading causes of CVD. As such, it evaluates the effectiveness of the Living in Victory Everyday (LIVE) Program in mitigating cardiovascular disease by testing 40 rural African Americans. The LIVE Program consists of a 3-month community-based nutrition and physical activity. This essay examines Mitchel et al.’s article and argues that LISA Program effectively provides better nutrition and increased physical activity for rural AA, thus decreasing the risks of cardiovascular disease.

The chosen object of study is relevant, as CVD is not prevailing in the country, particularly among rural AA in Alabama. The finding was that overcoming CVD is crucial for the health of the nation. Mitchel et al.’s study apply community-based participatory research (CBPR), having a sample of forty rural AA with the age range of 35 to 80 from Alabama. Criteria for the sample selection are clear, as there is only a need for rural AA adults. The sample size is small which may explain why some results showed no significant effects in the study. For example, there was no critical multivariate outcome for treatment time on the related nutrition products (Mitchel et al., 2018, p. 327). As such, the study can be improved by having a larger sample size. This study could apply to a more significant population by having a large sample size, providing practical implications.

According to the sample of the study, it is essential to look at its ethical considerations. Examining particular races, ethnicity, and community regarding health topics requires asking for consent, permissions, and codes of conduct. The study has a contract with participants that includes necessary procedures and information about their consent and eligibility, thus minimizing risks and not violating their rights during tests. Confidential information of participants was not revealed, so the study follows all ethical procedures. There may be contradictions with CVD treatment programs other than LIVE when it comes to conflicts of interest. Such programs may claim that their method is the most effective, so providing negative reviews about LIVE.

Speaking about the study’s used literature, it is relevant for the examination of CVD. Mitchel et al. analyze scholarship on the causes of cardiovascular disease and its treatment. They also examine several studies on how physical activity interventions and face-to-face nutrition improved the health conditions of people. For example, one of the key findings in the literature was Qian et al.’s study about the effects of the 12 weeks’ unique program related to nutrition and exercises that showed successful results (Mitchel et al., 2018, p.326). This finding allowed Mitchel et al. to base their examination, so providing additional evidence for their prediction.

However, the study lacks a broader discussion of existing literature, as it is mainly focused on quantitative analysis of the topic. There is a more detailed and comprehensive look at the literature needed. By doing so, the authors may find new perspectives, objectives, and methods for their study. In addition, it would be appropriate to analyze studies on how food intake influences the CVD of African Americans. Various factors, such as culture, lifestyle, and habits, could also be examined in the literature review.

The study relies on scholars who support the use of community-based participatory research. As such, Mitchel et al. applied the CBPR model when conducting tests. This theoretical framework is appropriate for the study as it provides proper research steps in analyzing specific communities. When making tests on rural AA, the CBPR framework was helpful in the organization of the study. The theoretical framework is also concerned with LIVA Program, proposing variables of nutrition and physical activity. Researchers used these variables to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. However, scholars do not consider other variables that increase cardiovascular diseases, such as smoking, age, culture, economic status, and other factors. Such failure to control aspects is expected, but the study should attempt to overcome this issue.

As for the research design, applying the CBPR approach is effective for this study, as it examines the health of a particular community. It was conducted for three month period through pre and post-LIVE Program enrollment of participants. The article shows each step of the study, from the recruitment of adults to actual results. The study uses 12 health and fitness and eight nutrition variables as dependent ones, while improvements in health as independent variables. It runs paired sample t-tests to compare and contrast participants’ ability to choose healthier food and quality of life composite scores pre and post-intervention (p.329). These t-tests provide data that were then analyzed by applying Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, which was the preferred statistical software. It can efficiently perform parametric and non-parametric comparison analyses (Ong et al., 2017, p. 18). Data collected from this type of statistical software are more accurate than in other software. Therefore, it is seen that the statistical methods used by Mitchel et al. are appropriate and suitable for this study.

Mitchel et al. used the Health Belief Model (HBM) to design interventions to address CVD (p.327). the HBM was found to be an effective tool to predict health behavior (Sharifzadeh et al., 2017). Therefore, the study was correct in using this tool to develop nutrition education components and survey assessments. The study uses the 30-second chair stand test and unipedal stance test with eyes open to measure participants’ body strength and balance (Mitchel et al., 2018, p.329). Although these tests are wide-used by scholars, the 30-second chair stand test was not acceptable in using it for older adults with low physical performance (Bruun et al., 2019). The methods mentioned above were valid and reliable for the study, as it examines health behavior by measuring participants’ health data.

Moreover, the study’s surveys about the nutrition and physical activity of participants were done based on credible sources, such as the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys which are nationally established instruments (Mitchel et al., 2018, p.328). However, taking a survey is not an effective method of monitoring outcomes, as participants may overstate their results. There can be participants who want to demonstrate positive results, so providing false data. Therefore, other methods than surveys or surveys with a controlling party can obtain accurate results.

When it comes to the study results, findings project the assumption of the authors that improved nutrition and increased physical activity led to decreased risks of cardiovascular disease. Results show that by LIVA Program, it is possible to obtain positive health outcomes. As such, it provides additional evidence for the scholarship that was discussed in the literature review. Mitchel et al.’s findings support common wisdom that healthy food choices and exercises are the main aspects of preventing CVD. Moreover, results demonstrate that educating rural AA about nutrition and physical activity is the best option to reduce the risks of CVD.

Mitchel et al. admit that due to the small sample, the study lacks specific results. Nevertheless, it can be generalizable for more extensive studies with a larger sample size, as the methods of the analysis are widely used and accepted by scholars. Due to the sample size and used methods, scholars provide recommendations for future research. One of the crucial recommendations is to have a more extended follow-up period when examining participants’ health behavior.

Overall, the article examines how the LIVE Program decreases the risks of CVD by providing better nutrition and increased physical activity for three month period. It contributed to my understanding of the research on health programs related to CVD by providing quantitative evidence. The study uses various methods of tracking people’s health and analysis of data, making me think about the most effective ones. It also supports my thoughts on CVD, as I believe that proper food consumption and physical activity should be taught to rural people so that they will not have high risks of disease. The article’s strengths were an accurate description of methods and analysis and the use of valid and reliable tools. When it comes to weaknesses, the study lacks an in-depth literature review, fails to control other factors affecting cardiovascular disease, and has a small sample size.


Bruun, I. H., Mogensen, C. B., Nørgaard, B., Schiøttz-Christensen, B., & Maribo, T. (2019). Validity and responsiveness to change of the 30-second Chair-Stand Test in older adults admitted to an emergency department. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 42(4), 265-274.

Mitchell, J. B., Paschal, A. M., Parmelee, P. A., & Murphy, P. Z. (2018). LIVE a community-based intervention to reduce CVD risk factors in rural community-dwelling African Americans. American. Journal of Health Education, 49(5), 326-334.

Ong, M. H. A., & Puteh, F. (2017). Quantitative data analysis: choosing between SPSS, PLS, and AMOS in social science research. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Scientific Research, 3(1), 14-25.

Sharifzadeh, G., Moodi, M., Mazhari Majd, H., & Musaee, I. (2017). Application of Health Belief Model in predicting preventive behaviors against cardiovascular disease in individuals at risk. Journal of Health Sciences and Technology, 1(2), 64-69.

Cite this paper

Select style


NursingBird. (2022, July 30). LIVE Program: Quantitative Article Critique. Retrieved from


NursingBird. (2022, July 30). LIVE Program: Quantitative Article Critique.

Work Cited

"LIVE Program: Quantitative Article Critique." NursingBird, 30 July 2022,


NursingBird. (2022) 'LIVE Program: Quantitative Article Critique'. 30 July.


NursingBird. 2022. "LIVE Program: Quantitative Article Critique." July 30, 2022.

1. NursingBird. "LIVE Program: Quantitative Article Critique." July 30, 2022.


NursingBird. "LIVE Program: Quantitative Article Critique." July 30, 2022.