Epi Class 4 Flashcards
(46 cards)
EDPs
Most research studies in public health can be expressed in terms of: [exposure] and [disease/outcome] in [population]
Exposures include: SES, health-related behaviors, health status, environmental exposures, etc.
Diseases/Outcomes include: injuries, communicable/infectious diseases, noncommunicable/chronic diseases, neuropsychiatric disorders
Population- try to be specific: ex. Australian children under 5, teachers with at least 10 years of classroom experience
Reviews / Meta-Analyses
A review article or meta-analysis carefully gathers all prior publications on a specific topic and summarizes them to provide a big-picture analysis.
Steps:
1. An extensive search of the literature
2. Extraction of key information from relevant articles
3. Clear and concise presentation of this information
• The goal of a meta-analysis is to combine the
results of several high-quality articles that used
similar methods to collect and analyze data
into one summary statistic.
• Meta-analysis usually begins with a comprehensive systematic review of the literature to identify every single possibly relevant article.
Ecological Studies (Correlational Studies, Aggregate Studies)
Uses population-level data to examine the relationship between exposure rates (E) and disease rates (D) in different populations (P).
No individuals – just average rates for a population.
Examples:
• Use country-level data from 191 nations to explore
whether there is an association between fat intake
(mean dietary fat consumption) and breast cancer
(population incidence rate).
• Use city-level data from 40 U.S. cities to explore whether there is an association between air pollution (mean parts per million) and lung disease (rate of hospitalization for chronic lung disease).
The exposure is often (but not always) “environmental.”
Strengths of ecological studies
- Low cost and convenient
- Measures environmental exposures (like air pollution) that are experienced by large groups of people
- Simplicity
Ecological Fallacy
The incorrect attribution of population-level associations to individuals.
Correlational studies compare groups rather than individuals.
No individual-level data are included in the analysis, only population-level data.
• Studies of group (not individual) characteristics
do not tell us whether these characteristics are
linked at the individual level.
Cross-Sectional Surveys (Prevalence Studies)
“Snapshot” in time – quick population survey
The goal is to measure the proportion of a population with a particular exposure or disease (or both) at one point in time based on a representative sample of a population.
Cross-sectional surveys are among the most popular study approaches in the health sciences because they allow for the relatively rapid collection of new data.
• Uses: describe communities, assess
population needs, evaluate programs,
establish baseline data prior to the initiation of
longitudinal studies
Simple study design: ask a few hundred people to complete a short questionnaire and then analyze the data.
The participants must be reasonably representative of some larger population.
It is usually NOT acceptable to use a convenience population
The sampled population must be as diverse as the source/target populations.
Cross-Sectional Surveys (Prevalence Studies): Analysis
Prevalence: the proportion of the population with a given trait at the time of the survey.
Comparative statistics: prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) can be used to compare the prevalence of a characteristic in two population subgroups by taking a ratio of their prevalence rates; odds ratios (ORs) can also be used.
An exposure can be said to be “associated” or “related” to a disease, but a cross-sectional survey cannot show that an exposure caused a disease
Sampling
- A study population should be representative of a well-defined source population.
- Study populations should not be too big (wastes resources) or too small (wastes resources)… but bigger is usually better! (Cross-sectional studies usually need to have >300 people.)
- If only some members of the source population will be sampled, an appropriate sampling technique must be used. Each unique sample drawn from a larger population will yield a slightly different study population.
- Bigger sample sizes = narrower confidence intervals = more likely to have a “statistically significant” result
- The goal is to have a sample size that is large enough to capture TRUE differences in the population
Power
The ability of a statistical test to detect significance in a population when differences really do exist (power = 1-β).
Sample sizes must be especially large to have the power to detect differences between means that are close to one another or significance for relative risks and odds ratios that have a point estimate close to 1.
• Use a computer program to estimate sample size and power, like OpenEpi.com or the StatCalc function in Epi Info
* Estimates of sample size and power are based on estimates of the prevalence / incidence of disease / exposure in specific population groups and the estimated RR or OR * This is an estimate not a calculation
Target Population
the general population that the study seeks to understand
Source Population
the specific individuals from which a representative sample will be drawn
Sample Population
individuals asked to participate
Study Population
eligible participants
Simple Random Sampling
each person has an equal chance of being selected
Systematic Sampling
after a random start point, every nth person is selected
Stratified Sampling
simple random samples selected from each of several strata
Cluster Sampling
an area is divided into geographic clusters and some clusters are selected for inclusion
Case Report
describes one patient
Case Report: (n = 1)
All participants have the disease (no controls).
No comparison group.
Case Series
describes two or more patients who have the same disease condition or who have undergone the same procedure.
Case Series: (n ≥ 2)
All participants have the disease (no controls).
No comparison group.
Uses of Case Report/Series
- Describing the characteristics of and similarities among a group of individuals with the same signs and/or symptoms of disease
- Identifying new syndromes and refining case definitions
- Clarifying typical disease progression (natural history of disease)
- Developing hypotheses for future research
Case-Control Study
• Individual participants in a case-control study are selected for inclusion in the study based on
their disease status
• Cases = participants with the disease of
interest
• Controls = participants without the disease
• Both cases and controls are asked the same
set of questions about past exposures
- Use: A case-control study is often the best study approach when the disease is relatively uncommon and a study of the general population is unlikely to yield more than a few cases.
- Case-control studies are the best (observational, analytic) study design for RARE DISEASES.
Case-Control Study: Case Definition
All cases must have the same disease, disability, or other health related condition. A case definition should specify exactly what characteristics must be present or absent for a person to be deemed a case
Finding Controls for Case-Control Study
Controls must be reasonably similar to cases except for their disease status.
• The inclusion and exclusion criteria for cases that do not specifically relate to the disease should also apply to controls.
For example, if cases must be males
between 25 and 39 years of age, controls
must also be men in this age group.
• Controls may be recruited from, among other sources: friends and relatives of cases, hospital or clinic patients without the disease of interest, the general population.
Bias
any systematic error that results in a mistaken estimate of an exposure’s effect on the risk of disease.