practising public health definition Flashcards

1
Q

Absolute risk reduction

A

The difference in the rate of adverse events in exposed and unexposed groups. This is mathematically identical to the attributable risk for a risk factor. (cf relative risk reduction and preventable fraction)

Suppose the risk of a deep vein thrombosis reduces from 0.03% to 0.02% following stopping the oral contraceptive pill; the absolute risk reduction is 0.01%, or 1 in 10,000.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Accuracy

A

The closeness of a measured value to a standard or known value. (cf precision)

The measurements of blood pressure in a patient by 10 different students were very precise as there was little variation in the results. However, all the readings were about 10 mmHg greater than the true blood pressure due to an inaccurate sphygmomanometer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Attack rate

A

The proportion of those individuals who are at risk of an infectious disease who become clinically ill in a given time period (usually expressed as a percentage).

In an outbreak of food poisoning, out of 1000 diners there were 50 cases of diarrhoea within a week of the meal. The attack rate was 50 out of 1000 diners, or 5% of diners were affected.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Attributable fraction

A

The proportion of an outcome in people exposed that is due entirely to the risk factor (the attributable risk divided by the risk in the exposed population). (cf preventable fraction and relative risk reduction)

If smokers have a 25.2% lifetime risk of lung cancer and non-smokers a 0.2% lifetime risk, the attributable fraction is (25.2% − 0.2% = 25% divided by the risk in the exposed population (25.2%) = 0.99 (99%), or 99 out of 100 lung cancers in smokers are due to smoking.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Attributable risk

A

The difference in the rate of disease in the exposed group as compared to the unexposed group. This is mathematically identical to the absolute risk reduction for the effect of a treatment.

If smokers have a 25.2% lifetime risk of lung cancer and non-smokers a 0.2% lifetime risk, the risk of lung cancer in smokers that is attributable to, or caused by, their smoking is 25.2% − 0.2% = 25%.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Basic reproduction number (R0)

A

The average number of individuals directly infected by an infectious case during the entire infectious period when entering a totally susceptible population. (cf effective reproductive number and secondary attack rate)

If the basic reproduction number (R0) of measles is 12, each case of measles introduced into a non-immune population would result in the infection of 12 other people.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Clinically significant

A

An effect that is large enough that it is worth treating a patient. (cf statistically significant)

A new blood pressure drug reduces diastolic blood pressure by 0.001 mmHg. Although the result from the trial was statistically significant, the effect is not clinically significant because it is so small and does not warrant widespread use of the drug (which may have negative clinical consequences like side effects).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Confidence interval (CI)

A

calculated interval with a given probability (usually 95%) that the true value of the effect lies within the interval.

Suppose the increased risk of lung cancer from radon exposure is 20% and the 95% confidence interval is 16%–24%. Therefore we can be 95% confident that the true increased risk lies between 16% and 24%, and conversely, there is a 5% (or 1 in 20) chance that the true risk lies outside this range.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Confounding variable

A

factor that is independently associated with the exposure and outcome/ disease under study, but is not an intermediate factor between exposure and outcome.

People who eat more fruits and vegetables are less likely to be obese. However, this observation may be confounded (or explained either completely or partly) by people who eat more fruits and vegetables also being more likely to take exercise, which is independently related to obesity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Cost-benefit analysis

A

formal comparison of the costs and outcomes of alternative interventions of which the costs and effects are not equal and results are expressed in terms of net benefit. Both costs and outcomes are measured in monetary units.

The cost-benefit analysis estimates that through savings over the next 20 years, investing £5 million in new road surfaces would benefit the economy by £10 million, compared to a £15 million benefit from investing £5 million in recruiting more nurses.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Cost- effectiveness analysis

A

formal comparison of the costs and outcomes of alternative interventions of which the costs and consequences are not equal and the results are expressed in terms of cost per unit of outcome. Outcomes are measured in natural units.

When comparing two blood pressure- lowering drugs, the cost-effectiveness analysis shows that drug A costs £5 per mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure, compared to £4 per mmHg reduction for drug B.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Cost- minimisation analysis

A

Compares the costs of alternative interventions that are assumed to have an equivalent effect. The goal is to find the least costly alternative.

Using a cost-minimisation analysis, nurse- led endoscopy units may have been shown to cost £60 more per patient than doctor-led units.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Cost-utility analysis

A

A formal comparison of the costs and outcomes of alternative interventions of which the costs and consequences are not equal and the results are expressed in terms of cost per unit of outcome. Outcomes are usually measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Per patient, the benefit (in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years) from repairing a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is significantly greater than prescribing a walking stick for recurrent falls (that also has a health benefit). However, the cost per QALY is much greater for the abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, as for the price of one operation you could buy more than 1000 walking sticks.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Cumulative incidence

A

See risk.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Effective (net) reproductive number

A

The average number of individuals directly infected by an infectious case during the entire infectious period when entering a typical population of susceptible and non-susceptible individuals. (cf basic reproduction number and secondary attack rate)

Each case of measles (R0 = 12) introduced into a population half of whom were immune to measures would result in the infection of six other people.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Endemic

A

The maintenance of a disease or illness in a community or region without the need for external inputs.

Herpes simplex virus is endemic to the UK; it does not require any external increase in cases to be maintained. This compares to malaria, which can be acquired in the UK in some exceptional scenarios but is not maintained due to lack of vector.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Epidemic

A

The occurrence in a community or region of cases of a disease or illness clearly in excess of normal expectancy.

A ‘flu epidemic is declared when the number of cases identified is greater than what would be expected under usual circumstances.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Evidence-based medicine

A

The ability to access, summarise and apply information from the literature to day-to-day clinical problems.

Evidence-based medicine is decision making based on sound scientific study rather than on the opinion of one or more individuals.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

False negative

A

Test result is negative but the person has the disease (i.e. test result is incorrect).

A test result that indicates no disease but in fact the person does have the disease.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

False positive

A

Test result is positive but the person does not have the disease (i.e. test result is incorrect).

A test result that indicates disease but in fact the person does not have the disease.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Gross domestic product

(GDP)

A

GDP measures total output within the geographical boundaries of the country, regardless of the nationality of the entities producing the output.

In 2012, the GDP of the United States was $16,250 billion and for Monaco $6 billion. The GDP per capita, however, was $160,000 for Monaco and $50,000 for the United States.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Hazard

A

A source of potential damage, harm or adverse health effects (cf risk).

The danger associated with something.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Herd immunity threshold

A

The proportion of the population who need to be immune to put transmission in decline.

Once 95% of children are vaccinated against measles, the disease no longer has a large enough susceptible population in which to sustain replication and case numbers will then decline.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (ICER)

A

The ICER is obtained by dividing the cost differences (C1 – C2) by the outcome differences (E1 – E2) for an intervention where C1 and E1 are cost and effect of the intervention, and C2 and E2 are cost and effect of the control (or current practice).

Suppose a person with pancreatic cancer is expected to live for 12 months following diagnosis with a quality of life score of 0.4 (0.4 × 12 months = 0.4 QALYs) and a drug that costs £36,000 can increase life expectancy by 12 months with a quality of life score of 0.8 (0.8 × 24 months = 1.6 QALYs). C1 – C2 = £50,000 and E1 –E2 = 1.6 QALYs – 0.4 QALYs. Therefore ICER = £36,000/1.2 QALYs = £30,000/ QALY.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Incidence

A

The number of new cases or events during a specified time period.

In 2011, the incidence of lung cancer among males in the UK was 77 new cases per 100,000 males.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Incidence density

A

See rate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Incidence rate

A

See rate.

28
Q

Incidence risk

A

See risk

29
Q

Incubation period

A

The time interval between acquisition of an infectious agent and the appearance of the first sign or symptom of the disease.

The incubation period for measles is around 7–12 days; following exposure, it will take 7–12 days before any symptoms appear.

30
Q

Infectious period

A

The time interval during which transmission to a susceptible host is possible.

Measles is infectious from about 4 days before the rash appears to about 4 days after it goes; this is the infectious period.

31
Q

Latent period

A

The time interval between acquisition of an infectious agent and the onset of infectiousness.

For measles it can take 7–12 days before a rash appears following an infection and measles is infectious from about 4 days before the rash appears so the latent period for measles is around 3–8 days.

This definition is from ECDC:

  • The period between exposure and infection is called ‘latent period’, since the pathogen is present in a ‘latent’ stage, without clinical symptoms or signes of infection in the host.
32
Q

Likelihood ratio (LR) of test results

A

The LR describes how the odds of a patient having a disease change based on the results of a test. A LR of 1 suggests the test adds no information. A LR– much lower than 1 suggests that a negative test is helpful in excluding the disease. A LR+ much higher than 1 suggests that a positive test result is helpful in confirming the disease.

Likelihood ratio of a negative test (LR−): A ratio of odds of disease given a negative test result to the pre-test odds of disease.

Likelihood ratio of a positive test (LR+): A ratio of the odds of disease given a positive test result to the pre-test odds of disease.

Post-test odds = pre-test odds × likelihood ratio

33
Q

Mortality

A

Death.

34
Q

Morbidity

A

Disease.

35
Q

Negative predictive value (NPV)

A

The proportion of patients with a negative test result who do not have the disease. (cf positive predictive value)

Suppose following a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with a cut-off at 4.0 ng/mL, 85% of men tested with a negative test don’t have the disease, and 15% (about 1 in 7 men with a negative result) do despite the negative result. The NPV is 85%.

36
Q

Number needed to treat (NNT)

A

The number of patients who must be treated in order to prevent one adverse event. This is the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction.

If to prevent one heart attack, 60 people with no known heart disease have to be treated with statins for 5 years, the NNT to prevent one heart attack would be 60.

37
Q

Odds

A

The odds of disease is the number of people with disease divided by the number without disease.

If out of every 10 people exposed to severe carbon monoxide poisoning, one person dies, the odds of death from severe carbon monoxide poisoning is 1/9, or 0.11. By comparison, the risk is 1/10, or 0.10.

38
Q

Odds ratio (OR)

A

The ratio of the odds of exposure in cases compared to the odds of exposure in controls (exposure OR).

Or

The ratio of the odds of disease in the exposed group compared to the odds of disease in the unexposed (disease OR).

Note: Odds ratios will approximate the risk ratio when the disease is rare. Where the disease is common, the odds ratio will always be more extreme than the risk ratio, so the value of the odds ratio should not be used to communicate relative risk. (cf risk ratio)

Odds of exposure in the cases divided by the odds of exposure in the controls.

If OR: >1: An increased risk of the outcome in exposed.

=1: No difference in risk of the outcome in exposed compared to unexposed.

<1: A decreased risk of the outcome in exposed.

39
Q

Opportunity cost

A

Within the context of a rationed system, this is what can no longer be funded when a decision is made to fund something else.

The opportunity of cost of funding a new weight management service is that a dietary education campaign has to be scrapped.

40
Q

p value

A

The probability that an effect as least as extreme as that observed in a study could have occurred by chance alone. By convention, a p value less than 0.05 is taken to mean that the effect is statistically significant.

A trial shows that a new blood pressure drug reduces diastolic blood pressure by 5 mmHg with a p value of 0.03. There is therefore a 3% (0.03 as a percentage) chance that the reduction may have occurred by chance and a 97% chance that the drug truly reduces diastolic blood pressure. This is less than 0.05 and therefore defined as statistically significant.

41
Q

Pandemic

A

An epidemic occurring worldwide or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries, and usually affecting a large number of people.

A viral haemorrhagic fever pandemic is declared when more cases occur than expected in different countries and parts of the world.

42
Q

Population attributable fraction (PAF)

A

Measure of the benefit of eliminating exposure from entire population as a percentage reduction in the outcome, calculated by dividing the population attributable risk by the incidence in the population.

If smokers have a 25.2% lifetime risk of lung cancer and non-smokers a 0.2% lifetime risk, and 20% of the population smoke, then 25.2%*20% + 0.2%*80% = 5.2% of the population will develop lung cancer; then the population attributable fraction is the population attributable risk (see below, 5%)/5.2% = 99%, or 99% of lung cancer cases would not happen if no one smoked.

43
Q

Population attributable risk (PAR)

A

Measure of the benefit of eliminating exposure from entire population. Calculated either by multiplying attributable risk by the proportion of exposed individuals in the population or by subtracting the disease incidence in the unexposed population from the total disease incidence in the population.

If 20% of the population smoke and the attributable risk of lung cancer from smoking is 25% over a lifetime, then the population attributable risk of lung cancer due to smoking is the attributable risk (25%)*20% = 5%, or 5 out of 100 people in the population would not get lung cancer if no one smoked.

44
Q

Positive predictive value (PPV)

A

The proportion of patients with a positive test result who truly have the disease. (cf negative predictive value)

Suppose following a PSA test with a cut-off at 4.0 ng/mL, 30% of men tested with a positive test have the disease, and 70% (about 7 in 10 men with a positive result) do not despite the positive result. The PPV is 30%.

45
Q

Post-test probability

A

The probability that a patient has a disease after a diagnostic test has been carried out. This is identical to the positive predictive value (if the test result was +ve). (cf pre-test probability)

Suppose around 20% of men aged over 65 have prostate cancer – the pre-test probability of having prostate cancer is 20%, or 1 in 5. Following a PSA test with a cut-off at 4.0 ng/mL, 30% of men tested with a positive test have the disease, and 70% (about 7 in 10 men with a positive result) do not despite the positive result. The post-test probability of having prostate cancer with a positive test is 30%.

46
Q

Purchasing power parity (PPP)

A

To compare living standards across countries, PPP exchange rates are constructed by comparing the national prices for a large basket of goods and services. These rates are used to translate different currencies into a common currency to measure the purchasing power of per capita income in different countries.

1 U.S. dollar (USD) will buy you a lot more in India than in America. Using the USD as a common currency unit, in 2012 the GDP measured as PPP per capita in India is 5140 USD compared to a gross GDP per capita of 1490 USD. These both compare to a GDP per capita (both PPP and gross) in the United States of about 50,000 USD.

47
Q

Precision

A

The closeness of two or more measurements to each other (independent of accuracy). (cf accuracy)

The measurements of blood pressure in a patient by 10 different students were very precise, as there was little variation in the results. However, all the readings were about 10 mmHg greater than the true blood pressure due to an inaccurate sphygmomanometer.

48
Q

Pre-test probability

A

The probability that a patient has a disease before the diagnostic test has been carried out. This is the equivalent of the prevalence of the disease in people with the same clinical features as the index patient. (cf post-test probability)

Suppose around 20% of men aged over 65 have prostate cancer – the pre-test probability of having prostate cancer is 20%, or 1 in 5. Following a PSA test with a cut-off at 4.0 ng/mL, 30% of men tested with a positive test have the disease, and 70% (about 7 in 10 men with a positive result) do not despite the positive result. The post-test probability of having prostate cancer with a positive test is 30%.

49
Q

Prevalence

A

The proportion of individuals in a population with a disease or condition at a given time.

The prevalence of lung cancer among UK adult males was about 85 per 100,000 in 2006.

50
Q

Preventable fraction

A

The proportion of the population who would be prevented from an outcome if exposed to an intervention compared to if not exposed (used when the exposure is protective). This is mathematically identical to the relative risk reduction.

Assume 10% of bicycle accidents involving cyclists who are not wearing a helmet result in serious head injury, and that wearing bicycle helmets reduces this risk to 4%. The preventable fraction = absolute risk reduction/event rate. This is (10% − 4%)/10% = 60%; among those cycling without helmets, 60% of serious head injuries resulting from bicycle accidents are preventable by the cyclist wearing a helmet. This is the same as 1 – RR (relative risk).

51
Q

Quality- adjusted life year (QALY)

A

QALYs incorporate both the quantity and quality of life dimensions. They are calculated by estimating the total life years gained from a treatment and weighting each year with a quality of life score (from 0, representing worst health, to 1, representing best health) to reflect the quality of life in that year.

Suppose a person with pancreatic cancer is expected to live for 12 months following diagnosis with a quality of life score of 0.4 and a drug can increase life expectancy by 12 months with a quality of life score of 0.8. The increase in QALYs gained by taking the drug is:

(2 years × 0.8) – (1 year × 0.4) = 1.6 QALYs – 0.4 QALYs = 1.2 QALYs

52
Q

Rate

A

The frequency at which an event occurs in a defined time period in a given population. Often expressed as number of events per total person- time at risk of developing disease. (Also called the incidence rate, incidence density, or force of morbid- ity/mortality.)

In 2006, the rate of lung cancer in newer smokers aged 40–79 was about 15 cases per 100,000 person years.

53
Q

Rate ratio

A

The ratio of the rate of disease in exposed group compared to the rate of disease in the unexposed group.

>1: An increased disease rate in exposed compared to the unexposed.

=1: No difference in disease rate in exposed compared to unexposed.

<1: A decreased disease rate in exposed compared to unexposed.

Note: A rate ratio can be quantified when communicated; i.e. RR of 2 is double the disease rate, RR of 0.5 is half, or a 50% reduction.

54
Q

Relative risk (RR)

A

A collective term for the ratio measures of association, including risk ratio, rate ratio, hazard ratio and odds ratio.

Probability of having an outcome among the exposed compared to the unexposed (i.e. divide the two risks).

>1: An increased risk of an outcome in exposed compared to the unexposed.

=1: No difference in risk of an outcome in exposed compared to unexposed.
<1: A decreased risk of an outcome in exposed compared to unexposed.

55
Q

Relative risk reduction (RRR)

A

The reduction in adverse events achieved by removing an exposure, expressed as a proportion of the baseline rate. (cf preventable fraction and attributable fraction)

The absolute risk reduction (ARR) as a percentage of the total risk in the population. Suppose the risk of a deep vein thrombosis reduces from 0.02% to 0.01% when stopping the oral contraceptive pill; the ARR is

0.02 − 0.01% = 0.01%, and the relative risk reduction = ARR/event rate = 0.01%/0.02% = 50%, or half the risk. This can also be calculated as 1 – RR (relative risk).

56
Q

Reliability

A

Describes how well a test will produce the same result when repeated a number of times. (cf validity)

A reliable test will produce similar results on repeated testing of the same outcome.

57
Q

Repeatability

A

The variation in repeat measurements made on the same subject under identical conditions.

The repeatability of a test is a way of assessing its reliability.

58
Q

Risk

A

The probability that an event will occur within a stated period of time (also called cumulative incidence or incidence risk).

The lifetime risk of lung cancer is about 6%, or 6 out of 100 people will get lung cancer at some point in their lives.

59
Q

Risk ratio

A

The ratio of the risk of disease in the exposed group compared to risk of disease in the unexposed group.

>1: An increased risk of an outcome in exposed compared to the unexposed.

=1: No difference in risk of an outcome in exposed compared to unexposed.

<1: A decreased risk of an outcome in exposed compared to unexposed. Note: For a risk ratio, the risk can be

quantified; i.e. RR of 2 is double the risk, RR of 0.5 is half the risk, or a 50% reduction.

60
Q

Secondary attack rate

A

The proportion of individuals in contact with infectious cases who become (clinically) ill (usually expressed as a percentage). (cf basic reproductive number and effective reproductive number)

When a resident infected with a new strain of ‘flu virus entered a care home, 10 out of 100 current residents became unwell with ‘flu. The secondary attack rate was 10/100, or 10%.

61
Q

Sensitivity

A

The proportion of patients with a disease who have a positive test result. (cf specificity)

Suppose the sensitivity of a PSA test with a cut-off at 4.0 ng/mL is 21%; therefore 21% of men tested who have prostate cancer have a positive test result, and 79% of men tested who have prostate cancer have a false negative result. Unlike positive and negative predictive values, the sensitivity and specificity of a test do not change with population disease prevalence.

62
Q

Specificity

A

The proportion of patients without a disease who have a negative test result. (cf sensitivity)

Suppose the specificity of a PSA test with a cut-off at 4.0 ng/mL is 91%; therefore 91% of men tested who do not have prostate cancer have a negative test result, and 9% of men tested who do not have prostate cancer have a false positive result. Unlike positive and negative predictive values, the sensitivity and specificity of a test do not change with population disease prevalence.

63
Q

Statistically significant

A

An effect that is unlikely to have occurred by chance; by convention, this is commonly defined as having an associated p value of less than 0.05. (cf clinically significant)

A trial shows that a new blood pressure drug reduces diastolic blood pressure by 5 mmHg with a p value of 0.03. There is therefore a 3% (0.03 as a percentage) chance that the reduction may have occurred by chance and a 97% chance that the drug truly reduces diastolic blood pressure. This is less than 0.05 and therefore defined as statistically significant.

64
Q

Statistical neighbours

A

Comparator organisations that are deemed suitable for benchmarking against your local population because of demographic similarities, such as age, socio-economic structure or numbers of students.

Comparing the health of our population to a statistical neighbour helps us identify whether the health of our population is better or worse than we would expect given our population make-up.

65
Q

Vaccine efficacy

A

Vaccine efficacy is the difference in disease attack rate between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, divided by the attack rate in the unvaccinated population, expressed as a percentage.

Vaccine efficacy is the percentage reduction in people who become unwell in a group of vaccinated people compared to those who are unvaccinated. If 10% of people without a flu vaccine become unwell compared to 1% of those with a vaccine, the vaccine is ((10% − 1%)/10%) = 90% efficacious.

66
Q

Validity

A

Describes how much a tool measures what it intends to measure. (cf reliability)

A valid questionnaire for depression distinguishes the presence or absence of depression, rather than other affective disorders.