Research Design Flashcards

1
Q

If the factor (cause) is present, the effect (disease) will always occur.

A

Sufficient cause:

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

The factor (cause) must be present for the effect (disease) to occur; however, a necessary cause may be present without the disease occurring.

A

Necessary cause:

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

: If the factor is present, the probability that the effect
will occur is increased.

A

Risk factor

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

The factor exerts its effect in the absence of intermediary factors (intervening variables).

A

Directly causal association

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

The factor exerts its effect through intermediary factors.

A

Indirectly causal association

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

The relationship between two variables is statistically significant, but no causal relationship exists because the temporal relationship is incorrect (the presumed cause comes after, rather than before, the effect of interest) or because another factor is responsible for the presumed cause and the presumed effect.

A

Noncausal association

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

○ Process of answering question that can be answered by appropriate collected data

A

Research

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

○ Rules that govern the process of collecting and arranging data for analysis

A

Research Design

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

○ Creating educated ‘guesses’ about a phenomenon

A

Hypothesis generation

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

○ Making predictions from hypothesis and examining data to determine if predictions are correct.

A

Hypothesis testing

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

To describe the pattern of health problems accurately or enable a fair, unbiased comparison to be made between a group WITH and a group WITHOUT a risk factor, disease, or a preventive or therapeutic intervention

A

Research Design

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

○ If cause is present, disease will occur ○ Example: genetic abnormalities lead to some fatal diseases (HLA-B27 gene for Ankylosing Spondylitis)

A

Sufficient Cause

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

○ Cause must be present for disease to occur, although it does not always result in the disease ○ Example: MTB as prerequisite for tuberculosis (though some people can be asymptomatic carriers)

A

Necessary Cause

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

○ Exposure, behavior, or attribute that, if present and active, increases the probability of a disease to occur

A

Risk Factor

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

■ First and most basic requirement for a casual relationship to exist between outcome of interest and presumed case

A

Association

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

■ Difference must be large enough to be “unlikely” if the exposure really has no effect (event is not random)

A

Statistically Significant

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

○ Occurs when factor under consideration exerts effect without intermediary factors (e.g.blow to the head)

A

Direct Causal Association

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

○ When one factor influences or more other factors through intermediary variables (e.g.poverty)

A

Indirect Causal Association

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

○ If presumed cause occurs after the effect

A

Noncausal Association

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

○ Each of two variables may reciprocally influence the other.

A

Bidirectional Causation

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

: A differential error that produces findings consistently distorted in one direction as a result of nonrandom factors.

A

Bias

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

A nondifferential error that produces findings that are too high and too low in approximately equal frequency because of random factors.

A

Random error

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

: The confusion of two supposedly causal variables, so that part or all of the purported effect of one variable is actually caused by the other.

A

Confounding

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

: The interaction of two or more presumably causal variables, so that the total effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects.

A

Synergism

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

A phenomenon in which a third variable alters the direction or strength of association between two other variables.

A

Effect modification (interaction)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q
  • first step in clinical trial involving assembling participants to be studies
A

Assembly bias

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

participants are allowed to select the study group to join

A

Selection bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

investigators assign participants to study groups in a non-random way

A

Allocation bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q
  • failure to detect a case or risk factor of disease (false-negative reactions)
A

Detection bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

wrong choice of measurement methods (false increase/decrease)

A

Measurement bias

31
Q
  • members of one group are more likely to remember than the other group
A

Recall bias

32
Q

○ Investigator simply observes study participants ○ Assignment of treatment group vs control remains outside of investigator’s control

A

Observational Studies

33
Q

Observational Studies can be classified to

A

Descriptive and Analytic

34
Q
  • no hypothesis specified, use existing date
A

Descriptive

35
Q
  • specified hypothesis, use of new data
A

Analytic

36
Q

○ Investigator has control over participants or variables

A

Experimental Studies

37
Q

○ Involves an investigation of clinical issues by using anthropologic techniques:

A

. Qualitative Studies

38
Q

Qualitative studies: anthropologic techniques:

A

■ Ethnographic observation
■ Open-ended semi structured interviews
■ Focus group discussions (FGDs)
■ Key information interviews (KIIs)

39
Q

Gaol: Provide rich, narrative information that tells story

A

Qualitative study

40
Q

○ Survey of a population at a single point in time
○ Interviews at home, through telephone, mailed surveys, emails, or web-based questionnaires

A

Cross-Sectional Surveys

41
Q

Advantages:
• Fairly quick and easy to perform
• Determines knowledge, attitudes, and health practices

A

Cross-Sectional Surveys

42
Q

Disadvantages:
• Difficulty in determining cause and effect
Biased toward longer-lasting and mild disease cases

A

Cross-Sectional Surveys

43
Q

CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY BIASES

A

Neynam bias (AKA late-look bias)
Health participant bias

44
Q

Sever and rapidly fatal diseases are less likely to be found when doing a survey

Length bias in screening programs, which tend to find (and select for) less aggressive illnesses

A

Neynam bias (AKA late-look bias)

45
Q

Not good in testing effectiveness of interventions like vaccination programs where people concerned about their health would less likely expose themselves to diseases, and not as direct result of intervention

A

Health participant bias

46
Q
  • collected soon after symptoms appear in the patient
A

Acute sera (1st sample)

47
Q
  • collected 10 to 28 days later when disease subsides.
A

Convalescent sera (2nd sample)

48
Q

High IgG, No IgM =

A

infection occurred in distant past

49
Q

High IgM, Low IgM =

A

current or very recent infection

50
Q

High IgM, High IgG =

A

fairly recent infection

51
Q

Relate frequency with characteristics and outcome of interest in the same geographic area

A

Cross-Sectional Ecological Studies

52
Q

Unit of analysis: populations (not individuals)
Useful for suggesting hypothesis (associations)
Cannot be used to draw causal conclusions

A

Cross-Sectional Ecological Studies

53
Q

■ Arriving at general conclusions based only on analyses of group data

A

Ecological Fallacy

54
Q

○ Measures trend in disease rates over many years in a defined population
○ Use ongoing surveillance or frequent repeated cross-sectional survey data
○ Epidemiologists can determine the impact of these changes on disease rates.

A

Longitudinal Ecological Studies

55
Q

○ Clearly identified group of people to be studied

A

Cohort Studies

56
Q

Assembling / choosing people specifically or taking a random sample of a given population

Characteristic: groups are typically defined on the basis of exposure and are followed for outcomes.

A

Cohort Studies

57
Q

The Present
Assemble cohorts in the present and collect data on present risk factors (present exposures)

The Future
Collect data at a time in the future on outcomes that arise

A

Prospective (longitudinal)
cohort study

58
Q

The Past
When exposures occur defines cohorts

The Present
Assemble cohorts in the present based on past risk factors (past exposures), and collect data on present outcomes

A

Retrospective cohort study

59
Q

The Past
When exposures occur that may be associated with outcomes

The Present
Assemble cases and controls in the present based on presentoutcomes, and collect data on past risk factors (past exposures)

A

Case-control study

60
Q

The Present
Associations between presentexposures and present outcomes (both occurring at a single point in time)

A

Cross-sectional study

61
Q

○ Investigator selects the case group and the control group on the basis of a defined outcome

A

Case-Control Studies

62
Q

Compares the groups in terms of their frequency of past exposure to possible risk factors

Can estimate relative risk (odds ratio)

Useful when study needs to be performed quickly and inexpensively or when disease is rare (prevalence<1%) ; Major drawback: potential recall bias

A

Case-Control Studies

63
Q

○ Cohort of participants is first defined
○ Baseline characteristics of participants are obtained by interview, physical examination, and pertinent laboratory or imaging studies

A

Nested Case-Control Studies

64
Q

Participants who develop the condition = cases

Those who don’t develop the condition = control

Data from two groups are compared using appropriate analytical methods (patient-time risk)

Another variant: case-cohort study

A

Nested Case-Control Studies

65
Q

○ Patients are enrolled in a study and randomly assigned to one of the following 2 groups:

■ intervention or treatment group

■ control group (given placebo or standard treatment)

A

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials (RCCT/RCT)

66
Q

Considered “gold standard” for studying interventions due to minimal bias in patient information obtained

A

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials (RCCT/RCT)

67
Q

– only participants are unaware

A

Single-blind study

68
Q

– participants and investigators are unaware

A

Double-blind study

69
Q

– participants, investigators, analysts are all unaware (most optimal)

A

Triple-blind study

70
Q
  • is an inert substance or treatment which is designed to have no therapeutic value.
A

Placebo

71
Q

○ Intervention is usually preventive rather than therapeutic and conducted in the community

○ Participants randomly allocated to receive preventive measure or to receive placebo

○ Followed overtime to determine the rate of disease in each group

A

Randomized Controlled Field Trials

72
Q

○ Sometimes referred to as “data fishing”
○ Danger of finding data that does not exist

A

Data dredging

73
Q

○ Committee responsible for reviewing all proposed research and ensuring that it is ethical

A

Institutional Review Board (IRB)