Epidemiology Flashcards
(57 cards)
Epidemic
Notable excess of disease over a period of time in a given region
Associated with an acute outbreak e.g. Cholera, Malaria, Measles
Point Source epidemic
All members of the population at risk are exposed to the causal agent over a short period of time.
Incubation period may vary amongst individuals which is reflected in the intensity of exposure/immune response of people exposed.
Predictable distribution.
#cases increase rapidly, peak, gradually taper off.
Right skewed curve
One Source of infection
Propagative Epidemic
Multiple peaks. Wave after wave of infection spreads through the population.
Index case-likely source for sources in secondary and tertiary peak.
Contagious
E.g. measles
Endemic
Constant presence of disease agent within given geographical area or population
E.g. Malaria, Ross river virus
Cluster
Aggregation of relativity uncommon diseases in space and/or time in amounts that are perceived to be greater than chance.
Usually environmental cause, rare, non-infectious.
Steps to investigating outbreaks
- confirm problem
- extent of outbreak
- population at risk
- hypotheses
- analyse data
- modify hypothesis
- control measures
- evaluate effectiveness
- prevention
Attack rates
Percentage of: (those who became ill )/ (those who were exposed ) x 100
Relative risk
Attack rate(%) if exposed / Attack rate (%) not exposes
Observational Stuides
Descriptive and analytical
Case series, cross sectional, cohort, case control
Do not intervene
Investigator measures and describes the occurrence/pattern of disease
Descriptive studies
1st step in epidemiological investigation
Limited to describing occurrence
Case report-1 person
Case series-more than 1 person
E.g. Thalidomide, SARS, HIV/AIDS
Detailed report of single patient or group of patients
Analytical Studies
Cross sectional and cohort studies
Assment of patterns/relationships between health states and variables
Cross-sectional studies
Survey
Examine frequency of health problems and how common in a specified population
Not easy to assess reasons for associations
E.g. deliberate self-harm in adolescence
Cohort studies
Begin with people free of disease of interest
Classify people into subgroups depending on exposure to potential cause of disease
Variable of interest is specified and measured over time
No intervention
Cohort study benefits
Observe only-no intervention or experiment
Provide best info about causation or risk
Can examine multiple outcomes of single exposure e.g. effect of high protein diet on cholesterol and weight loss
Reduce bias in assessing exposure (prospective)
Directly measures incidence of disease in exposed/unexposed populations
Cohort study drawbacks
Need large number of participants inefficient for rare diseases expensive and time-consuming validity can be affected by losses due to follow-up (long study) and death
Case-control studies
Begin with group of people with disease (cases) AND group of people without disease (controls) look at possible cause of disease in both groups
Case-control studies benefits
Good for rare diseases or diseases with long latency example cancer
quick
inexpensive
small number of participants
can study more than one potential disease
Case-control study’s drawbacks
Rely on records/recall of past exposure (recall bias)
selection of appropriate control group is difficult
cannot establish sequence of events (cause and effect)
can show Association But can’t show causation unable to determine prevalence of disease in population
Experimental studies
Includes randomised control trials (RCT) or intervention studies involves attempt by researcher to change a disease determinate/progress of disease in one or more groups of people through treatment or exposure
Randomise control trials
Use patient as subjects investigate affect of a treatment or intervention on specific disease
Field trials
Participants are healthy people purpose is to prevent low frequency disease for example vaccine trials
Community trials
Participants are communities
benefits of experimental studies
- Considered goal standard high level of evidence national health and medical research council
- reduced risk of bias due to randomisation
- blinding of participants and assessors to group allocation double blinding -no bias
- can compare between treatments which drug better at achieving outcomes
Levels of evidence national health and medical research council
Level 4 Descriptive studies cross-sectional studies case report and Case series
level 3 observational studies cohort and case control
level 2 experimental studies randomise control trials (RCT)
level 1 systemic review of relevant randomise control control trials meta-analysis