Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

Epidemiological methods and measurements help epidemiologists and healthcare professionals understand disease distribution, related factors, impact on various population groups, and how to contain the spread of a disease across the population. This discussion post will compare and contrast the cohort study and a randomized controlled trial epidemiological methods of research. Particularly, the post will identify and discuss the fundamental difference between cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, the advantages and disadvantages of the cohort study method, the characteristics of a correlational study, where the cohort study method falls on the research pyramid, and what that means as an epidemiological method of research.

The Difference between the Cohort Method and the Randomized Controlled Trial

The fundamental difference between cohort study methods and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is in how each study method is designed and how the sample and participants are selected. Cohort studies are observational studies. This means that, as observational studies, cohort studies do not develop or implement an intervention but only involve observing what happens. As an observational study, cohort studies focus on a particular group of people, a population, or individuals over a certain period of time (Wang & Kattan, 2020). The participants of the study, also known as cohorts, are selected based on the similarity of the group’s shared characteristics, such as exposure to the same risk or risk status. The outcomes of cohort studies can be measured or observed at one or different time points.

In contrast, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are interventional studies. In this case, an intervention trial that is developed for the treatment or prevention of a specific disease is implemented. In RCTs, the participants of the studies are selected randomly and divided into two groups. One group is provided with the intervention or treatment, while the other is a control group and is given a placebo. RCTs investigate how an intervention for treating or preventing a particular disease is effective and efficient in producing desirable outcomes. The randomness of participant selection for RCTs reduces the risk of bias, and having a placebo group can objectively establish the effectiveness of the intervention. Through this, RCTs tend to provide the highest level of evidence within clinical research settings that can help understand causal associations (Zabor et al., 2020).

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Cohort Study

Using cohort study methods for epidemiological research has a number of advantages and disadvantages. For the advantages, cohort studies allow epidemiologists to investigate and establish the existence of the cause-and-effect relationship between exposure to a certain phenomenon and the health outcomes of a particular population. This is possible as the cohort study methods provide sufficient time to observe and draw conclusions on whether exposure to the phenomena is related to certain observed outcomes. Another advantage is that cohort studies allow for observations and conclusions to be made on multiple outcomes based on a single exposure. Additionally, due to the time taken to carry out cohort studies, epidemiologists can make observations on certain rare exposures that may have unexpected outcomes that are hard to observe in a short time.

On the other hand, the disadvantages of cohort studies are related to the time taken to carry out the study and the number of participants. To begin with, cohort studies are time-consuming as they take a long period to conclude. This means that, other than time, the costs of carrying out such studies may be high. Additionally, participants may get bored and drop out of the study due to the prolonged study periods. As cohort studies also require huge participation, they may not be applicable in cases where the study focuses on a smaller population. Another significant disadvantage of cohort studies is that they utilize exposure to determine outcomes. This may create ethical concerns due to the possibility of harm related to exposure.

Characteristics of a Correlational Study

Correlational studies allow epidemiologists to compare and establish relationships. As observational studies, correlational studies are majorly non-experimental. This means that the correlational study methodology does not allow the researcher to manipulate or influence the variables studied and tends to study them in their natural state (Fleetwood, n.d.). The focus of correlational studies is on how variables relate or associate but not cause-effect relationships as with RCTs. Correlational studies are also characterized by the nature of the data collected for the studies. The instruments for data collection are mainly surveys and questionnaires. Epidemiologists applying correlational study methods can also utilize existing records and databases covering the variables studied. A notable characteristic of correlational studies is that they focus on the past variables of interest and study how such variables have been related in the past. This can help epidemiologists note changes in such relationships in the future.

Where the Cohort Study Falls on the Research Pyramid and What This Means

The research pyramid shows the hierarchy of study evidence obtained using various research methods. Cohort studies provide level 2 evidence close to RCTs. The level to which a particular study method falls within the research pyramid shows the quality, objectivity, and accuracy of the evidence provided. For instance, RCTs tend to fall high up the pyramid, showing that RCTs provide more accurate evidence of the highest quality of causality (Mentzer, n.d.). On the other hand, research methods on the lower parts of the research pyramid have the lowest quality evidence, which is mostly undependable in making epidemiological decisions. The cohort studies being higher than most other studies and close to RCTs, which are considered to provide the highest quality evidence, show that cohort studies provide a moderate level of evidence that is more reliable than using other methods lower in the pyramid.

References

Fleetwood, D. (n.d.). Correlational Research: What it is with Examples. QuestionPro. Retrieved March 20, 2023, from https://www.questionpro.com/blog/correlational-research/

Mentzer, K. (n.d.). Evidence-Based Practice for Health Professionals: Levels of Evidence. Retrieved March 20, 2023, from https://libguides.nvcc.edu/evidence-based-practice/levelsofevidence

Wang, X., & Kattan, M. W. (2020). Cohort Studies: Design, Analysis, and Reporting. Chest, 158(1S), S72–S78. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEST.2020.03.014

Zabor, E. C., Kaizer, A. M., & Hobbs, B. P. (2020). Randomized Controlled Trials. Chest, 158(1S), S79–S87. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHEST.2020.03.013

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Week 3
Epidemiological Methods and Measurements
Discussion
Purpose
This discussion board content is intended to facilitate learning for students through engaging dialogues as they achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies associated with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize, integrate, apply, and critically appraise their knowledge to their selected field of practice.

Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

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 are based upon the composition of student and faculty interaction in the quest for a 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.

Due Date
Initial prompt due by Wednesday, 11:59 PM MT of week 3
One peer and one faculty or two peer posts are due by Sunday 11:59 PM MT of week 3
A 10% late penalty will be imposed for initial discussions posted after the weekly deadline, regardless of the number of days late. No postings will be accepted after 11:59 pm MT on Sunday (i.e., student will receive an automatic 0). Week 8 discussion closes on Saturday at 11:59 pm MT.

Total Points Possible: 60 Points
Preparing the Assignment
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 and the methodology to a randomized controlled trial using the following questions. Please format and organize, your responses using each question below:

What is the fundamental difference between the method you have chosen (either the case-control or cohort method) and the randomized controlled trial?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the study method you chose (case-control or cohort study)?
What are the characteristics of a correlational study?
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-to 5 sentences, on two (2) different days of the week. Your reply post should be 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) related to the study method as well as an integration of in-text citations along with a scholarly voice and APA formatting. The textbook may be utilized as a resource.

Posting Directions

Posts should be made on a minimum of 3 separate days/dates.
All faculty replies to students must be responded to directly in the discussion board.
The minimum posting is:
Initial discussion board post to the weekly prompt, two peer posts (if there are no faculty postings), or one peer post and a faculty post.
**To 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.

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 the discussion prompt addressed (met) in the initial posting.
The student’s writing conveys an understanding of significant ideas relevant to the issue under discussion. This is indicated by the 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 judgment.
Chooses to include professional experience in the discussion board, mindful of appropriateness and boundaries. Experience is integrated as it supports the discussion board topic and utilizes scholarly references to support the 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