NR 503 Week 3 Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

NR 503 Week 3 Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

NR 503 Week 3 Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

Epidemiological Methods and Measurements Sample Paper

Dr. Castle and class

Advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) are vital in research; therefore, it is important to understand the characteristics and differences between research methods. This discussion will cover the fundamental difference between the cohort method and randomized controlled trial (RCT) and summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the cohort study method. The characteristics of a correlational study will be addressed, along with where cohort studies fall on the research pyramid and what it means. NR 503 Week 3 Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

In epidemiology, the term cohort can be defined as a group of people with defined characteristics studied to determine the incidence or the mortality from a specific disease, cause of death, or another outcome (Wang & Kattan, 2020 NR 503 Week 3 Epidemiological Methods and Measurements). Cohort studies can be useful in determining the incidence, causes, and prognosis (Wang & Kattan, 2020).  Cohort designs can be either prospective or retrospective in nature. With prospective designs, the researcher begins the study by enrolling subjects and following up with them throughout the study to determine the outcome. With the retrospective design, the outcome is already determined, and the researcher jumps back in time to determine a cohort of subjects at a point where they did not have the outcome (Wang & Kattan, 2020).

Cohort studies can be utilized in assessing the association between exposures and outcomes over time and in building prognostic and prediction models (Wang & Kattan, 2020 NR 503 Week 3 Epidemiological Methods and Measurements). Randomized controlled trials can provide sound evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment (Curley Cupp, 2020). It is the most common research method in health sciences and is considered one of the most powerful tools in clinical research. It  is the gold standard research design for representing a cause-and-effect relationship between an intervention and an outcome. RCTs are the most reliable methods available for testing new treatments (Rajasekar & Kumar, 2019). The most fundamental difference between cohort studies and RCTs is that the cohort method studies the intervention of a naturally occurring event while an RCT studies a controlled intervention.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to cohort studies. Cohort studies carry the benefit of being able to investigate multiple outcomes that may be associated with multiple exposures; they offer the ability to study the change in exposure and outcome over time, these studies are suitable for examining rare exposures and may be able to calculate incidence (Wang & Kattan, 2020 NR 503 Week 3 Epidemiological Methods and Measurements). The two subsets of prospective and retrospective cohort studies offer benefits as well.

Prospective cohort studies offer the ability to control design, sampling, data collection, and follow-up methods and can measure all variables of interest, while retrospective cohort studies can be time-effective and inexpensive and large samples can be easily obtained (Wang & Kattan, 2020). The major drawbacks of the cohort method are the susceptibility of loss to follow-up compared with cross-sectional studies. The confounding variables can present a major problem in data analysis compared with RCTs. Prospective cohort studies can be expensive, along with time-consuming. Retrospective studies have less control over variables and may be more susceptible to informational and recall bias (Wang & Kattan, 2020).

Correlational studies involve establishing relationships between two or more variables in the same population or between the same variables in two populations (Curtis et al., 2016). A correlation occurs if one variable increases and another variable increases or decreases, this can be useful in determining trends and patterns (Curley Cupp, 2020). Correlation studies are non-experimental and focus mainly on predicting and explaining variables and should be used with caution. However, they can be useful in identifying health disparities, leading to further research (Curley Cupp, 2020 NR 503 Week 3 Epidemiological Methods and Measurements).

There are various versions of the research pyramid. However, each of them respects the same basic research hierarchy, with the weaker studies on the bottom, followed by case-controlled studies, then cohort studies, next are RCTs, and finally, meta-analysis and systematic reviews (Murad et al., 2016). Cohort studies fall in the middle of the pyramid between case- studies and RCTs, therefore, it is considered to have a lower level of evidence when compared to RCTs. Generally, clinical recommendations evolve from the top two levels of the pyramid (Murad et al., 2016). With that in mind, APRNs should be cautious when applying evidence gained from cohort studies into practice, as these may not be sufficient or may be inconsistent.

APRNs have the opportunity to assist in decreasing health disparities among different populations. Understanding epidemiological methods and measures and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of study designs can assist APRNs in identifying trends and outcomes (Curley Cupp, 2020). There is no study which can be considered perfect and understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each design study can assist in increasing the validity of research.

Carrie

References

Curley Cupp, A. L. (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing Company.

Curtis, E. A., Comiskey, C., & Dempsey, O. (2016). Importance and use of correlational research. Nurse Researcher, 23(6), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2016.e1382

Murad, M., Asi, N., Alsawas, M., & Alahdab, F. (2016). New evidence pyramid. Evidence-Based Medicine, 21(4), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401

NR 503 Week 3 Epidemiological Methods and Measurements Instructions

Utilizing the list below, choose two research methods. Next, find two articles, one on each of the chosen methods, from the Chamberlain College library, or you may use one that is provided within the course and one you find from the library. The articles should related to population health and infectious disease, chronic health, occupational health, global health, genomics, or environmental health:

• Randomized Control Trial
• Cohort Study
• Case-Control Study
• Cross-sectional

Read each article and answer the following questions for each article:

• Does the study design specify a question, goal, of the study?
• Explain the methodology (Randomized Control Trial, Cohort Study, Case-Control Study).
• Describe the participant information, include recruitment. Is selection bias present?
• How is data collected?
• Are the variables? If yes, discuss. If no, how does this impact your interpretation of the study?
• How the data was analyzed, what statistics are provided?
• What are potential errors to the study design? What are the weaknesses of the type of study design/method?
• Discuss the outcomes and the implications for implementation.

Post your analysis of the research studies to the DB. Your analysis should have in-text citations and utilize a scholarly voice with APA formatting. You may choose to write a Word doc and upload your doc to the discussion board for this week.

Respond to a total of posts; either two (2) peer posts or a peer and faculty post, with a minimum of one paragraph of 4- S sentences for each of their articles. Your reply post should integrate in-text citation(s) and formatted with APA and a scholarly voice. Threaded Discussion Rubric located in Course Resources. Week 4 Midterm Guide Here.