4. Descriptive epidemiology Flashcards
Target population =
People you want to apply your results to
(e.g. everyone living in australia)
Source population/sampling frame =
People from whom the population is selected
(e.g. everyone on autralian election roll)
Sample =
People approached tot ake part in the survey
(e.g. random sample of those listed)
Study population =
People who actually took part in the survey
What is the real strength of randomization?
- The real strength of randomisation is that, on average, it will also balance these other unknown or poorly measured factors across the groups.
Why is it important to have large groups in an RCT?
If the groups are small it is unlikely that all of the factors that could affect the outcome will be evenly distributed across the groups.
Of non-randomised designs, the most common are historical controls.What happens in such a design? What are these designs also called? Name an example.
> health outcomes after introduction of a new treatment/preventive measure are compared to the outcomes experienced by the same population before the change in practice
(also sometimes called a pre–post study)
e.g. patient survival rates might be compared before and after the introduction of a new surgical technique
What is a major problem with historical controls?
Assumes that the only (or most important) thing that has changed is the new legislation or the type of surgery, and that may not be the case.
Why must participants be free of the outcome of interest at the start of the follow-up of a prospective/longitudinal cohort study?
to avoid reverse causality
What are advantages of the prospective cohort study design?
- Outcome bias is prevented. Measurement of exposure is not biased by knowledge of outcome status.
- Multiple outcomes/risk factors in single study
- Rare EXPOSURES (do not read: diseases) can be studied
What are disadvantages of the prospective cohort study design?
- People may have changed their behaviours over the intervening years (misclassification)
- Not good rare diseases
- follow-up time long enough?
- Costs
- Ensuring people who started to stay till the end: who is lost to follow up?
- Confounding in exposure/non-exposed? (e..g who are those who regularly use and those who do not regularly use their phones?)
What are limitations to the retrospective/historical cohort design?
- requires good records of past exposure
- generally limited to studying mortality or cancer outcomes, given the lack of universal records for other non-fatal endpoints
Shape case-control?
disease/no disease > exposure
Adv case-control study?
- Quicker
- Good for rare outcomes
- often less burden to participants
- cheaper
What is a disadvantage of selecting hospital controls in case-control group?
Drawback: their risk factor distributions may not reflect that of the source population from which the cases emerged
Disadv case-control study?
- Selection bias in case (survivor effect) and control groups (risk factors not like source population)
- Recall bias
- not good rare exposures
- Reverse causation
- Not able to calculate RR - you cannot calculate the incidence
- Confounding