What was the primary finding of the SMILE study six months later?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

We begin by restating the question and listing the answer choices to ensure clarity.
Question: What was the primary finding of the SMILE study six months later?
Answer options:
1) Participants in the exercise group were less likely to relapse.
2) Participants in the combination group showed sustained improvement.
3) Participants in the medication group were less likely to relapse.
4) Participants in the exercise group were more likely to relapse.
5) There was no six month follow-up because of the danger.

Now, evaluate each option one by one with careful reasoning.
Option 1: 'Participants in the exercise group were less likely to relapse.' This statement asserts a protective effect of exercise on relapse rates at six months. If the primary finding highlighted exercise as beneficial for maintaining gains post-intervention, this option aligns with a commonly observed pattern in behavior-change studies where physical activity supports relapse prevention. To assess its correctness, consider whether the study’s six-month follow-up specifically reported reduced relapse in the exercise arm; if that was the primary takeaway, this option would be plausible.
Option 2: 'Participants in the combination group showed sustained improvement.' The term 'combination group' could refer to a blend of interventions (e.g., exercise plus another modality). If the study emphasized sustained improvement in a different group, this would be the correct focus. However, the prompt asks for the primary finding; unless the six-month result unusually singled out the combination group, this might be a distractor.
Option 3: 'Participants in the medication group were less likely to relapse.' This option would be correct if pharmacological treatment alone reduced relapse rates at six months. If the SMILE study is about a behavioral or lifestyle intervention rather than pharmacotherapy, or if medication did not show a significant six-month relapse reduction, this would be incorrect.
Option 4: 'Participants in the exercise group were more likely to relapse.' This is the direct opposite of Option 1. If the data showed harm or no benefit from exercise regarding relapse, this would be the correct reversal. In many studies, this option would be a clear misinterpretation or misreporting unless the results explicitly indicated a detrimental effect of exercise on relapse, which would be unusual here.
Option 5: 'There was no six month follow-up because of the danger.' This option asserts that follow-up was not conducted due to safety concerns. If the study indeed reported a six-month assessment with clear data, this option would be incorrect. It would also imply an ethical or methodological issue not typically claimed without explicit notes in the study report.

To differentiate the options, we should connect them to the study’s design and reporting: did the six-month data show a preventive effect from exercise, a sustained improvement from a combination approach, or a relapse reduction due to medication? If the SMILE study’s headline finding at six months emphasized exercise reducing relapse risk, Option 1 would reflect the correct interpretation. If the emphasis was on a different arm or on a lack of six-month data, the corresponding option would be more accurate. The distractors (Options 2, 3, and 4) rely on shifting emphasis to other groups or reversing the effect, while Option 5 posits an absence of data entirely, which should be ruled out if the question mentions a six-month finding at all.

In summary, analyze the comparison implied by 'six months later': does the primary result point to exercise reducing relapse, a combination group showing ongoing benefit, medication reducing relapse, increased relapse with exercise, or no follow-up data due to danger? The most consistent interpretation with a stated primary finding about relapse risk in the exercise group would be Option 1, while the other options propose alternative focuses or impossible scenarios given a specified six-month finding.

Accelerated ELL Writing 5 | The How of Happiness Quiz: Chapter 9, Part 2 (p. 240-end of chapter)

What was the primary finding of the SMILE study six months later?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

The CVP and break-even analysis are supported by a range of important assumptions. Which of the following is not an assumption of the CVP:

The break-even point is that at which:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler