Researchers study the relationship between interpersonal violence and health in college age women. The researchers report an OR for psychological distress among abused versus non-abused women (OR 1.37 95% CI 1.03-2.21). Based on this information, you know: a. Abused women are significantly more likely to have psychological distress. This is a clinically significant result In this study women who were abuse were 37 times more likely to report psychological distress.
The study mentioned in the question aims to investigate the relationship between interpersonal violence and health in college-age women. Specifically, the researchers are interested in assessing the impact of abuse on psychological distress. The findings of the study provide an odds ratio (OR) for psychological distress among abused women compared to non-abused women, along with a corresponding confidence interval (CI).
The reported odds ratio is 1.37, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 1.03 to 2.21. The odds ratio indicates the likelihood of experiencing psychological distress among abused women compared to non-abused women. An odds ratio greater than 1 suggests that the event or outcome of interest (psychological distress in this case) is more likely to occur in the exposed group (abused women) compared to the unexposed group (non-abused women).
In this context, an odds ratio of 1.37 suggests that abused women are 1.37 times more likely to experience psychological distress compared to non-abused women. However, it is worth noting that the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio ranges from 1.03 to 2.21. This indicates that the true odds ratio could be anywhere within this range with 95% confidence.
Interpreting the confidence interval, we can conclude that there is statistical uncertainty around the estimate of the odds ratio. The lower bound of 1.03 suggests the minimal effect size, indicating that abused women are at least 1.03 times more likely to experience psychological distress, while the upper bound of 2.21 suggests the maximum effect size, indicating that abused women are at most 2.21 times more likely to experience psychological distress. However, both of these values should be interpreted with caution, as there is still some uncertainty around the true effect size.
Based on the information provided, we cannot definitively state that abused women are significantly more likely to have psychological distress. The odds ratio of 1.37 does indicate a potential relationship between abuse and psychological distress, but without additional information, such as the p-value associated with the odds ratio estimate or the sample size of the study, it is not possible to determine if the observed effect is statistically significant.
Moreover, the statement that abused women are 37 times more likely to report psychological distress appears to be incorrect. The odds ratio of 1.37 does not directly translate into an interpretation that abused women are 37 times more likely to experience psychological distress. The odds ratio represents the odds of the event occurring in the exposed group (abused women) divided by the odds of the event occurring in the unexposed group (non-abused women). It is not a direct measure of the magnitude of the effect.
In conclusion, the information provided in the question suggests that there may be a relationship between abuse and psychological distress among college-age women. The reported odds ratio of 1.37 provides an estimate of the relative likelihood of psychological distress in abused women compared to non-abused women. However, without additional information, such as the statistical significance of the result, it is not possible to conclusively determine the significance of the observed relationship. Additionally, it is important to note that the claim of abused women being 37 times more likely to have psychological distress is not supported by the provided information.