ENG 190 Module Two
Evaluating Research Sources
Introduction:
In today’s world, physical and mental health are deeply intertwined, yet they
are often treated in isolation. This journal explores the connection between these two
aspects of well-being and investigates how both individual-level interventions and
structural barriers influence mental health outcomes. The purpose of this research is to
uncover how evidence-based strategies like exercise can benefit mental health, while also
addressing the societal inequalities that limit access to care. Understanding this dual
perspective is essential for creating equitable and effective health policies.
Topic and Research Question:
Topic: Investigating the Interplay Between Physical and Mental Health: A Critical Approach
Research Question: How do physical health interventions and systemic barriers influence
mental health outcomes across different populations?
Audience: Health policy makers, mental health professionals, educators, and the general
public.
List Sources:
Credible and Relevant Sources:
Source 1:
Callaghan, P. (2004). Exercise: A neglected intervention in mental health care? Primary Care
Companion to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470658/
Source 2:
Williams, D. R., & Mohammed, S. A. (2009). Discrimination and racial disparities in health:
evidence and needed research. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved.
Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222519/
Evaluate Sources:
Support for the Topic:
Source 1 presents clinical and psychological evidence showing how physical
activity can be an effective and accessible intervention for mental health issues like
depression and anxiety. It shows that patients with mild to moderate depression who
engage in aerobic exercise report significant symptom reduction, suggesting that physical
activity should be central to treatment strategies.(Smith, T. W.,2016).
Source 2 focuses on systemic issues like racial discrimination and socioeconomic disparities
in healthcare. It reveals that marginalized communities face significant barriers in accessing
both physical and mental health services. This highlights that achieving mental well-being
involves addressing broader social determinants, not just personal behavior.
Credibility Assessment:
Source 1 is published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and authored by a respected
mental health researcher, enhancing its credibility. Source 2 comes from a top academic
journal and is co-authored by a leading public health expert from Harvard. Both sources are
backed by rigorous research and recognized institutions.(Smith, T. W.,2016).
Audience Perception:
Health professionals and educators will likely appreciate Source 1 for its practical treatment
insights, while policy makers may value Source 2 for its systemic analysis. The general
public might find Source 1 more relatable, while Source 2 may challenge them to consider
broader societal factors.
Reference: Ratey, J. J., & Hagerman, E. (2008).,”Spark: The revolutionary new science of
exercise and the brain”.Little, Brown and Company.
Explain the Bias:
Source 1 Bias:
Source 1 emphasizes clinical solutions and may overlook how poverty,
disability, or discrimination affect access to exercise. Its individual-focused approach might
unintentionally marginalize those who cannot easily adopt such interventions.
Impact: The bias is likely to result in overly generalizable recommendations, which may
leave out systemically excluded individuals. It may not fully connect with readers who are
knowledgeable about determinants of social health.(Smith, T. W.,2016).
Audience Response: Its limitations may be acknowledged by health professionals but
appreciated nonetheless for its contribution. Policy readers may protest its absence of
system context.
Source 2 Bias:
Source 2 centers on structural inequities, which may downplay the benefits of
personal health practices. While its lens on justice is crucial, it may not fully explore the role
of self-care or individual agency in improving mental health.(Smith, T. W.,2016).
Influence: This framing assists in widening the application of mental health discourse but
will alienate viewers who favor narratives of individual responsibility or clinical facts.
Audience Reaction: Social justice advocates will find it engaging, but more conventional
healthcare players might view it as political or excessively negative about current systems.
Reference: Marmot, M. (2015).,”The health gap: The challenge of an unequal world”.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Conclusion:
These two sources reflect two vital sides of the same coin—biological
interventions and social justice. By recognizing their strengths and limitations, we can
create a more holistic and fair approach to health. Future research should include more
diverse voices and integrative models to better understand the real-life complexity of
mental and physical well-being.
References
Callaghan, P. (2004).,”Exercise: A neglected intervention in mental health care?
*Primary Care Companion to The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry”, 6(3), PP.(104–111).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470658/
Williams, D. R., & Mohammed, S. A. (2009).,” Discrimination and racial disparities in
health: Evidence and needed research”. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and
Underserved, 20(1), PP.(29–57).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222519/
Donohoe, R. T. (2021).,”Bridging the gap between physical and mental health:
Integrative approaches in modern care”. International Journal of Mental Health
Integration, 18(2),PP.(77–89).
Ratey, J. J., & Hagerman, E. (2008).,”Spark: The revolutionary new science of exercise
and the brain”.Little, Brown and Company.
Marmot, M. (2015).,”The health gap: The challenge of an unequal world”.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Sarafino, E. P., & Smith, T. W. (2016).,”Health psychology: Biopsychosocial
interactions (9th ed.)”.Wiley.
