Epidemiology & Population Hlth

profileTinacherry100$
wk.2.PopulationHealthandEpidemiology.docx
Home>Nursing homework help>Epidemiology & Population Hlth

Population Health and Epidemiology

DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES FOR POPULATION HEALTH

 

INTRODUCTION

In 2016, the Surgeon General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made policy recommendations related to e-cigarettes intended to curb their use by minors, including: (a) incorporating them under current clean indoor air policies, (b) requiring sellers to be licensed, (c) restricting marketing, and (d) increasing educational initiatives (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). In the intervening years, policies have become more restrictive. For instance, in 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration implemented a policy to ban all flavors of e-cigarettes except tobacco or menthol (FDA, 2020). As of 2021, all 50 states prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors (CDC, 2021). What investigations led to these recommendations? How did these public health entities determine the use of e-cigarettes by minors?

Week 1 presented foundational concepts of epidemiology and described how epidemiology is used to improve population health. Building on that information, this week, you will be introduced to descriptive epidemiologic research studies. You will examine the purposes of descriptive epidemiology, which provides a picture of the distribution of disease in terms of person, place, and time. You will also look at sources of health data that can be useful for this type of research. By understanding the descriptive characteristics of diseases, nurses and healthcare providers can develop hypotheses related to diseases. They can then address these further by using analytic epidemiologic study techniques, which will be discussed in subsequent weeks.

References:

· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). State tobacco activities tracking and evaluation (STATE) system: STATE system e-cigarette fact sheet. https://www.cdc.gov/statesystem/factsheets/ecigarette/ECigarette.html 

· U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). E-cigarette use among youth and young adults: A report of the Surgeon General. https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/2016_SGR_Full_Report_non-508.pdf

· U.S. Food & Drug Administration. (2020, January 2). FDA finalizes enforcement policy on unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint [Press release]. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-finalizes-enforcement-policy-unauthorized-flavored-cartridge-based-e-cigarettes-appeal-children

OBJECTIVES

· Apply descriptive epidemiologic concepts and methods to a population health problem

· Select methods for collecting descriptive epidemiologic data

· Analyze strengths and limitations of secondary data sources

· Assess the quality and validity of secondary epidemiologic data sources

This is a graded discussion: 100 points possible

due Mar 6

Week 2: Discussion

DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY: DATA SOURCES AND DATA COLLECTION

A person's hand pointing at a computer Description automatically generated

Descriptive epidemiology deals with describing disease patterns using three major categories: person, place, or time (Friis & Sellers, 2021). Consider the following example:

Over the last weekend, six people went to the Alcan City Hospital emergency room with similar symptoms. The laboratory results for the six patients were indicative of an infection due to Escherichia coli (E. coli). Patient interviews revealed they had all eaten a meal at Sam’s Sandwich Food Truck during the Alcan City Fair within 48 hours of going to the hospital. Further inquiries by the Alcan City public health officials identified that the source of the E. coli contamination was the lettuce that Sam’s had purchased from M&L Produce (a produce supplier located in Tempe, Arizona). Epidemiologists from the Arizona State Health Department determined that the lettuce that M&L supplied Sam’s was from a farm located in Xion, California (the key supplier for M&L Produce).

Aside from the six patients who sought treatment, epidemiologists tracked down and conducted interviews with 400 of the fair attendees to identify any potential cases who did not seek treatment and compare data with those who attended but did not become ill. Interview questions pertained to descriptive aspects of the outbreak (person, place, and time). Analysis of data collected on foods eaten allowed the epidemiologists to narrow it down and identify sandwiches served by Sam’s Sandwich Food Truck at the fair on Saturday as the source of infection. Alcan City public health officials were quick to visit the food truck to inquire into their food management and handling. The food truck owner was cooperative and helpful in providing licensing, permits, operations, and sales information.

Descriptive epidemiologic studies are often conducted as precursors to analytic studies. Epidemiologic concepts are used to gather data to better understand and evaluate health trends in populations. Data, such as characteristics of the persons affected, place where an incident occurred, and time of occurrence, are collected and analyzed to look for patterns in an effort to identify emerging health problems. It was in just this way that the HIV/AIDS epidemic was first identified.

In this Discussion, you will apply the epidemiologic concepts of time, place, and person to a specific population health problem. You will also consider methods for obtaining data to study an issue.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. Click the weekly resources link to access the resources. 

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

· Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.

· Chapter 6, “Using Information Technology to Improve Population Outcomes”

· Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021).  Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

· Chapter 4, “Descriptive Epidemiology: Person, Place, Time”

· Chapter 5, “Sources of Data for Use in Epidemiology”

· National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine. (2019).  Finding and using health statistics.Links to an external site.  https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/stats_tutorial/cover.html

SECONDARY DATA SOURCES

Use the following resources to locate secondary data sources for this week’s Assignment:

· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.).  Data.CDC.gov: Home.Links to an external site.  https://data.cdc.gov/

· National Center for Health Statistics. (2015).  Resources for researchers.Links to an external site.  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nchs_for_you/researchers.htm

· Walden University Office of Research and Doctoral Services. (n.d.).  Explore existing datasets.Links to an external site.  https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/research-center/student-research/data-sources

· World Health Organization. (2021).  WHO Data collectionsLinks to an external site.  [Data sets]. https://www.who.int/data/collections

TO PREPARE:

· Examine Table 2.2 in your Curley textbook. Select a topic from the table to use for this Discussion.

· Locate two scholarly articles that provide background information about the problem.

· Identify a specific population affected by your selected health problem.

· Research the patterns of the disease in your selected population using the epidemiologic characteristics of person, place, and time.

· Consider methods for obtaining data to examine the association you selected.

· Ask yourself: How would the methods I select influence the accuracy of case identification, definition, and diagnosis

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

· Describe your selected health problem using the epidemiologic model (person, place, and time), with a focus on the population affected by this problem.

· Discuss sampling methods you could use to collect primary data to describe and study your health problem.

· Identify two secondary data sources that you could use to collect the data needed to address this topic.

· Explain how these methods and sources would influence the completeness of case identification as well as the case definition/diagnostic criteria used.

Assignment Rubric Details Close

Rubric

NURS_8310_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8310_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)

30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.

18 to >0 pts

Poor

Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

10 pts

Total Points: 100

image1.jpeg