NR 503 Week 3 Discussion: Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

Sample Answer for NR 503 Week 3 Discussion: Epidemiological Methods and Measurements Included After Question

NR 503 week 3 discussion epidemiological methods and measurements

Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

The primary purpose of an observational study known as a case-control study is to investigate the factors that are related with diseases or outcomes. It starts with a collection of instances, which are essentially the participants in the experiment whose outcomes are of interest. After then, the researcher will construct a second group of participants who will act as controls. These individuals will be comparable to the case participants; however, they will not have the outcome of interest (Tenny et al., 2021). On the other hand, a randomized controlled trial, also known as an RCT, is a prospective study that evaluates the efficacy of a recently developed treatment or intervention. Randomized controlled trials (often known as just “RCTs”) are an extremely reliable method for determining the causal connections between an intervention and a result. The randomization process ensures that the characteristics of the participants in each group are comparable, which enables researchers to identify and account for any discrepancies in the results of an intervention (Hariton & Locascio, 2018). Unlike randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies are observational in nature and do not give the same degree of evidence.

One of the benefits of case-control studies is that their methodologies make it possible to investigate uncommon illnesses and evaluate the historical circumstances that are related with them. In addition, the structure of case-control studies makes it easy to investigate a number of potential risk variables all at once (Tenny et al., 2021). Case-control studies are extremely useful in the event of a disease outbreak because they may be utilized to determine the possible linkages and exposures that are responsible for the outbreak. Nevertheless, they have drawbacks, such as the possibility of subjectivity in the recalling of events. In case-control studies, the term “recall bias” refers to the higher likelihood that participants who have the result will remember and report exposures as compared to persons who do not have the outcome (Tenny et al., 2021). Because of this, one can get the incorrect conclusion that there is a connection between exposure and sickness.

The goal of correlational research is to determine whether or not there are distinct differences in the features of a population that can be attributed to the degree to which its participants have been naturally exposed to an event of interest. When conducting correlational investigations, the researcher identifies a number of variables and then investigates potential connections between the variables (Ranganathan & Aggarwal, 2018). The result is known as the dependent variable, while the other factors whose relationships are being investigated are known as the independent variables. In the hierarchy of research methods, case-control studies are at the bottom of the pyramid. This indicates that they are not as reliable as RCTs and cohort studies because the demonstration of a statistical link does not necessarily entail that one element contributed to the other in a necessary manner (Ranganathan & Aggarwal, 2018).

References

Hariton, E., & Locascio, J. J. (2018). Randomised controlled trials – the gold standard for effectiveness research: Study design: randomised controlled trials. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 125(13), 1716. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15199

Ranganathan, P., & Aggarwal, R. (2018). Study designs: Part 1 – An overview and classification. Perspectives in clinical research, 9(4), 184–186. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_124_18

Tenny, S., Kerndt, C. C., & Hoffman, M. R. (2021). Case Control Studies. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing.

NR 503 week 3 discussion epidemiological methods and measurements

This discussion board content is intended to facilitate learning for students through engaging dialogues as they achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies … with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize, integrate, apply and critically appraise their knowledge to their … field of practice.

The use of discussions provides students with opportunities to contribute graduate level-appropriate knowledge and experience to the topic in a safe, caring, and fluid environment that models professional and social interaction. The ebb and flow of a discussion is … upon the composition of student and faculty interaction in the quest for relevant scholarship.

Participation in the discussion generates opportunities for students to actively engage in the written ideas of others by carefully reading, researching, reflecting, and responding to the contributions of their peers and course faculty. Discussions foster the development of members into a community of learners as they share ideas and inquiries, consider perspectives that may be different from their own, and integrate knowledge from other disciplines.

This week we are comparing and contrasting epidemiological methods of research; case-control and cohort study methods. Select either the case-control or cohort study method and compare its features, the methodology, to a … trial using the following questions. Please format, organize, your responses using each question below:

1. What is the fundamental difference between the method you have chosen (either the case-control or cohort method) and the randomized controlled trial?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the study method you chose (casecontrol or cohort study)?
3. What are the characteristics of a correlational study?
4. Where does the method you chose (case-control or cohort study) fall on the research pyramid? What does where it is on the research pyramid mean?

Post your response to the DB. Your analysis should have in-text citations and utilize a scholarly voice with APA formatting.

Respond to a total of two posts: Either two (2) peer posts or a peer and faculty post (all faculty posts require a response), with a minimum of one paragraph of 4-5 sentences, on two (2) different days of the week. Your reply post should … specific to this week’s topic of epidemiological research methods and should integrate in-text citation(s).

Your reply post/s should integrate course content (such as course terminology) … to the study method as well as an integration of in-text citations along with a scholarly voice and APA formatting. The textbook may … as a resource.

**To see view the grading criteria/rubric, please click on the 3 dots in the box at the end of the solid gray bar above the discussion board title and then Show Rubric.

Screening tools for Alcohol Misuse.

There are several tools used for detecting alcohol abuse with the most common being Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test Consumption (AUDIT-C). AUDIT-C is a three-question test to evaluate a person’s daily alcohol use and takes about two minutes long. The questions address alcohol use, frequency, and frequency of having six or more drinks on each occasion (Higgins-Biddle et al., 2018).

AUDIT-C test was implemented by Higgins-Biddle during visits with college students during campus clinic for medical reasons. The test was used to identify alcohol misuse disorder and the students were offered resources along with counselling. With identification and interventions following the AUDIT-C test screening, it showed a decreased consumption of alcohol (Higgins-Biddle et al., 2018)

AUDIT-C test is appropriate for any group age 18 years and over and can be provided at a primary care appointment by a care provider (U.S. Preventative Service Task Force [USPSTF], 2018). When an individual is positive on the AUDIT-C test, then an Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) is administered and it consist of ten questions and take about five minutes to complete and one screening question is “How many times do you have more than 8 drinks a day for men, or more than 4 drinks/day for women or adults older than 65 years?

Predictivity Ability:

How can we tell if the test is reliable and valid? The (USPSTF) US Prevention Service Task Force claims that strong evidence of efficacy is derived from a quick behavioral change after a counselling session. The USPSTF study showed that for adults with risky or hazardous drinking habits that undergo an effective behavioral counselling support have reduced alcohol consumption and abuse. The Predictivity of the AUDIT screening and effective counselling shows improved adherence to the advised alcohol limit and a lower weekly alcohol consumption rate.

This study doesn’t provide sufficient evidence of study on how well brief behavioral counselling works for pregnant women who abuse alcohol or are alcoholic. The study has evidence on women with alcohol abuse problem that would like to get pregnant by reducing alcohol intake and stick with the counselling advice to set a drinking limit.

What are the reliability and validity values?

The intensity and interventions are defined by the USPSTF in three categories, 1. Very Brief single contact (5 minutes). 2. Brief Single contact (6-15 minutes), and 3. Brief Multiple contact (1 contact, each greater than 15 minutes). Research shows that very brief contact counselling has the list effectiveness while multi-contact with longer sessions has the strongest evidence of effectiveness. This study cannot be used to measure sensitivity compared to other studies on diseases, but it can be integrated into my advanced practice.  The study is effective for positive affect for risky and unhealthy drinking behaviors for adults and the brief behavioral counselling is most effective for the binge drinkers.

Alcoholism is a sensitive topic in society and alcohol consumption discussions are challenging especially to young adults. The practitioner should comfortably assess and treat patients at risk using the AUDIT screening since they are user-friendly and straightforward tools (Zimmerman et el, 2018).

Reference:

Higgins-Biddle, J. C., & Babor, T. F. (2018). A review of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (audit), audit-C, and USAUDIT for screening in the United States: Past issues and future directions. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 44(6), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2018.1456545Links to an external site.

Home Page: United States Preventive Services Taskforce. Home page | United States Preventive Services Taskforce. (n.d.). Retrieved July 13, 2022, from https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/homeLinks to an external site.

Zimmermann, E., Sample, J. M., Zimmermann, M. E., Sullivan, F., Stankiewicz, S., & Saldinger, P. (2018). Successful Implementation of an Alcohol Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment Program. Journal of trauma nursing : the official journal of the Society of Trauma Nurses, 25(3), 196–200. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTN.0000000000000368

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NR 503 Week 3 Discussion: Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

Title: NR 503 Week 3 Discussion: Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

Thank you for such an insightful post. I love how you presented your ideas on the AUDIT-C screening tool’s predictive ability, reliability, and validity. As you have highlighted, the tool has been tested in individuals aged 18 years and above. It has been proven to be reliable in identifying alcohol misuse in this age group population. The tool is user-friendly and straightforward, fostering a clear discussion regarding the sensitivity surrounding alcohol consumption as an issue surrounding this population. According to research, the predictive ability of the AUDIT-C tool screening and effective counseling showed improved adherence to the advised alcohol limit and a lower weekly alcohol consumption rate (Campbell & Maisto, 2018).

            Regarding the reliability and validity values of the tool, The AUDIT-C showed high reliability with a Cronbach coefficient of 0.98, 0.95 correlation coefficient, and 0.95 ICC (Khadjesari et al., 2018). For the AUDIT-C, a score of 4 for men and 3 for women provided the best performance for identifying hazardous drinking with sensitivity in the mid-90s and specificity in the 80s ((Khadjesari et al., 2018). According to Khadjesari et al. (2018), receiver operating characteristic curves suggested a score of ≥5 points for men and ≥4 for women are appropriate cutpoints. The AUDIT-C screening tool’s high reliability and validity scores underscore the importance of incorporating it in primary health care and health examination centers due to the potential to produce accurate results. Furthermore, these results can be utilized in the establishment of effective countermeasures to minimize alcohol-related disease burden and societal social problems. Good job!

Academic research scientists aim to explore the correlation between exposure and disease outcomes by formulating hypotheses and selecting the appropriate study design to investigate this relationship. The chosen method, whether experimental or observational, guides researchers in their investigation. I came across a study that focuses on the correlation between exposure and disease outcomes. This study explores how cohort studies, which are observational studies that follow groups of individuals with varying exposures over time, examine the effects of exposures on specific health outcomes. The main focus was on investigating whether certain exposures were linked to an increased or decreased likelihood of the desired outcome. The study’s conclusion highlighted the value of cohort studies, as they enable researchers to observe potential associations between exposures and outcomes in populations where random exposure assignment is not feasible due to various constraints (Miroshnychenko, et al., 2022). 

Miroshnychenko, A., Zeraatkar, D., Phillips, M. R., Bakri, S. J., Thabane, L., Bhandari, M., Chaudhary, V., Chaudhary, V., Bhandari, M., Wykoff, C. C., Sivaprasad, S., Thabane, L., Kaiser, P., Sarraf, D., Bakri, S. J., Garg, S. J., Singh, R. P., Holz, F. G., Wong, T. Y., & Guymer, R. H. (2022). Cohort studies investigating the effects of exposures: Key principles that impact the credibility of the results. Eye, 36(5), 905–906. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01897-0

DISCUSSION CONTENT
Category	Points	%	Description
Scholarly	13	22%	The student actively stimulates and sustains inquiry by making reflective insightful comments, asking thoughtful questions and/or engaging in a scholarly discussion.The student expresses a clear idea of the topic under discussion and sustains inquiry in order to explore relevant issues.The student recognizes values or values conflict as things that form the assumption basis of arguments and recognizes when it is important to acknowledge these values.The student recognizes the accuracy, logic, relevance, or clarity of statements.The student asks clarifying questions and knows when clarifying questions need to be asked.The student distinguishes fact from opinion.
Application	20	33%	All components of discussion prompt addressed (met) in initial posting.The student’s writing conveys an understanding of significant ideas relevant to the issue under discussion. This is indicated by integration of course and weekly objectives, as well as readings from text and articles.All posts should make correct use of terminology, precise selection of the pieces of information required to make a point, correct and appropriate use of examples and counterexamples, demonstrations of which distinctions are important to make, and explanations that are concise and to the point.Information and knowledge are accurate.The student elaborates statements with accurate explanations, reasons, or evidence from the course and/or weekly objectives.All postings integrate scholarly sources to support points consistently.
Interactive Dialogue	10	16.6%	Responds to ideas in a way that advances discussion with engagement, depth, rigor, and application.Interacts with a professional tone and is able to express opinions with ownership and without judgement.Chooses to include professional experience to the discussion board mindful of appropriateness and boundaries. Experience is integrated as it supports the discussion board topic and utilizes scholarly references to support overall topic.
	43	72%	Total CONTENT Points = 43 pts
DISCUSSION FORMAT
Category	Points	%	Description
APA	12	20%	In text citations are formatted per APA 7th ed.Reference list is formatted per APA 7th ed.Spelling, grammar, and scholarly tone are per APA 7th ed.
Spelling / Grammar etc.	5	8%	Posts should utilize correct spelling and grammar (sentence structure and avoidance of slang or casual language).
	17	28%	Total FORMAT Points = 17 pts
	60	100%	DISCUSSION TOTAL = 60 points