Epi Midterm Flashcards
Cohort Study
Measures of association/frequency: Risk, Rate, RR, RD, IRR, IRD
Advantages: good for rare exposures, good for multiple outcomes, known temporal association
Disadvantages: time consuming, expensive, not good for rare outcomes, lost to follow up
Prospective: Enrolling a cohort and observing to see who develops the disease
Retrospective: Enrolling a cohort and recording who had or did not have the disease
Intervention Study
Directionality: Forward
Measures of frequency/Association: Risk, Rate, RR, RD, IRR, IRD
Advantages : Causal inference, less opportunity for bias, participants may benefit
Disadvantages: Ethical challenges, expensive, generalizability
Ecological Study
Procedure: ID a set of populations, Classify by exposure, Classify by outcome
Measure of frequency: Correlation
Advantages: cheap if using existing data, Efficient, good if looking at broad trends
Disadvantage: ecological fallacy, missing data on confounders, might use more indirect measures
Good place to start to guide hypothesis
Case Control Study
Measures of association/frequency: Odds, OR
Cannot calculate risk so no RD or PRD
Advantages: Good for rare disease, good for multiple exposures, good for long induction/latent period
Disadvantages: temporality is not always clear, bias in exposure ascertainment since you are often relying on participants to tell you
Equipoise
The point at which an intervention study must stop either bc of discovering harms or advantages of the intervention that rise to a pre-determined level that would make it unethical to continue.
Key Features of Descriptive Epi
Person, Place, and Time
Great for generating hypothesis
Ecological Fallacy
Attempting to draw individual level conclusions based on population based data (mostly a problem with ecological study design)
Ethical Considerations
Comparison Group - who is your comparison group? Are participants in the comparison group being harmed by not receiving the intervention?
Equipoise - is there sufficient evidence that the intervention is not harmful? Is there enough doubt that it will be beneficial?
Sustainability/Feasibility - is the intervention feasible to continue if found beneficial to participants? Is scale-up possible?
PH surveillance
The ongoing systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of health related data essential to planning, implementation, and evaluation of PH practice, closely integrated with timely dissemination of these data to those responsible for prevention and control.
Analysis of Case Control Studies
Odds and odds ratios are common but not as easily interpreted as a measure of risk or relative risk
Luckily the OR can approximate the RR given one of the following conditions: disease is rare OR you use population sampling for your controls
Selection of Cases
Cases: incident case of disease preferred because etiology is more clear but you can also use prevalent cases
Selection of Controls
Goal: estimate the distribution of the exposure in the general populations
Types of controls: population controls hospital controls neighborhood, family, etc (less common)
Things to consider: Feasibility, How representative
would the control population be of the population the controls came from?
Difference between retrospective cohort study and a case control study
Key differences: retrospective cohort we are determining exposure first and then determining outcome. With case control, we enroll based on outcome status to see the outcome
With retrospective cohort we have underlying population in case control, we don’t which is why we cannot calculate risk
Standardization
One method of adjusting for confounding or biased factors
Used frequently in descriptive epidemiology to allow for comparison between groups
We talk about this bc they use it a lot in descriptive epi (comparing between groups)
Interpretation Shells
Risk Difference –> The excess risk of the outcome associated with the exposure was XX%
Rate Difference –> The excess rate (or risk) of the outcome associated with exposure was XX per X person time
Risk Ratio –> The risk of outcome among exposed was XX times that of the unexposed.
Prevalence Ratio –> The Prevalence of the outcome among exposed was XX times that of the unexposed
Odds Ratio –> The odds of (disease or exposure) were xx times that of the exposed/cases compared to the unexposed/controls.
Cross Sectional Study
Procedure: ID population of interest, ID who has exposure, and ID who does not have exposure.
Measures of association/ frequency: Prevalence, PR
Advantages: Efficient, great for descriptive Epi
Disadvantages: difficult to determine temporarily, can be difficult for rare disease with short duration
Nested Case Control
Measures of Association
Absolute comparisons: Risk difference (RD), Population Risk Difference (PRD), Attributable proportion among exposed (APe), attributable population among unexposed (APtot).
Relative Comparisons: Relative Risk (RR)
Why? To understand the impact of exposures on population health (absolute) and to understand risk factors of health outcomes (relative)
Shoe Leather Epidemiology
You go door to door to get all the info you need
Two types of Cohorts
General Cohort : group enrolled as cohort without regard for exposure our outcome (nurses health study). Group is enrolled prior to classification according to exposure
Exposed Cohort: Enrolls a population based on sharing a particular exposure. Useful for rare exposures
Internal vs External Comparison group
You are comparing within your cohort
If you enrolled based on exposure, you would have to go outside to compare
Prevalence Ratio
(A/(A+B))/(C/(C+D))
from 2 X 2 table
Analysis of Ecological Studies
Cannot make a 2 x 2 table because you are generally working with aggregate (numerical/continuous) measurements. Instead, you use correlations
Positive correlation = r > 0 (exposure & outcome
increase or decrease together)
Negative correlation = r < 0 (exposure & outcome have
an inverse relationship)
Independent = r = 0 (no relationship)
Analysis of Intervention Studies
Risk type intervention study analysis : CI, Cumulative Incidence Difference, Cumulative Incidence Ratio
Rate type intervention study analysis : Incidence Rate (IR), incidence rate ratio (IRR), incidence rate difference (RD)
Intent to treat type analysis: “real world” measure of effectiveness. analyze if everyone followed the treatment regiment (regardless of actual compliance). This helps maintain comparability and statistical power
Efficacy (per-Protocol) analysis: efficacy under ideal conditions. only analyze those who followed the treatment or intervention regiment per protocol. This may help better analyze the effect but reduces comparability and statistical power.
Explanation of study design must include
-What study population are you going to enroll?
-How are you going to ascertain exposure status/assign
intervention?
-How are you going to determine disease outcome?
-How long are you going to follow your participants for?
-Measures of association?
-Advantages?
-Disadvantages?