Measures Of Association As An Epidemiologist For The County ✓ Solved

Measures Of Associationas An Epidemiologist For The County Disease Con

As an epidemiologist investigating an outbreak at a restaurant, it is crucial to understand the type of study conducted, the appropriate measure of association, how to calculate attack rates, interpret confidence intervals, and identify the likely source of exposure based on the data collected. This comprehensive analysis will walk through these elements based on the scenario provided, which involves a suspected foodborne illness outbreak with symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea.

Understanding the Study Design

The investigation described is typical of a cohort study. In such a design, the entire group of individuals exposed to the restaurant’s food items are studied to compare the incidence of illness among those who ate specific foods versus those who did not. Data collection on individual food consumption and health outcomes facilitates the calculation of attack rates and measures of association. Cohort studies are particularly effective in foodborne outbreak investigations because they enable direct risk comparisons between exposed and unexposed groups within the population exposed to the suspected source, as demonstrated in the restaurant scenario.

Appropriate Measure of Association in this Study

The appropriate measure of association for data derived from a cohort study investigating the relationship between specific foods and illness is the relative risk (RR). The relative risk compares the probability (attack rate) of disease among those exposed to a particular food item with the probability among those unexposed. Calculating RR helps determine the strength of association and the likelihood that consuming particular food items is linked to the illness outbreak.

Calculating Food-Specific Attack Rates and Measures of Association

Attack rates are crucial in outbreak investigations as they quantify the proportion of individuals ill among those who consumed specific foods. They are calculated as:

Attack Rate = (Number of Ill Persons who ate the food / Total number who ate the food) x 100

Similarly, attack rates can be calculated for those who did not eat the food to contrast risk levels.

Data Assumptions and Calculations

The data provided indicate consumption among ill and non-ill persons for prime rib, baked potato, and green salad but lacks explicit counts. For the purpose of illustration, assume a hypothetical total of 100 persons and numbers of persons who ate or did not eat each food based on typical outbreak data representation.

Suppose:

• Prime Rib: 40 ate, 60 did not eat; among the eaters, 30 ill, 10 not ill.
• Baked Potato: 50 ate, 50 did not eat; among the eaters, 38 ill, 12 not ill.
• Green Salad: 35 ate, 65 did not eat; among the eaters, 30 ill, 5 not ill.

Attack Rates Calculation:

• Prime Rib: Attack Rate = (30 / 40) x 100 = 75%
• Not Prime Rib Eaters: (10 / 60) x 100 ≈ 16.7%
• Baked Potato: Attack Rate = (38 / 50) x 100 = 76%
• Not Baked Potato Eaters: (12 / 50) x 100 = 24%
• Green Salad: Attack Rate = (30 / 35) x 100 ≈ 85.7%
• Not Green Salad Eaters: (5 / 65) x 100 ≈ 7.7%

Relative Risk Calculations:

Using the attack rates:

• Prime Rib: RR = 75% / 16.7% ≈ 4.5
• Baked Potato: RR = 76% / 24% ≈ 3.17
• Green Salad: RR = 85.7% / 7.7% ≈ 11.13

These RRs suggest that individuals who consumed green salad had a significantly higher risk of illness compared to those who did not, indicating a strong association between green salad consumption and illness.

Interpreting Confidence Intervals

A confidence interval (CI) provides a range within which the true measure of association is likely to fall with a specified probability (commonly 95%). A 95% CI that does not include 1 suggests a statistically significant association, indicating that the observed relationship is unlikely due to chance. Conversely, a CI including 1 implies no statistically significant association.

Statistically Significant Confidence Intervals in This Case

The provided CIs for prime rib (1.4 - 65.7) and baked potato (1.6 - 218.5) do not include 1, indicating that these associations are statistically significant and unlikely to be due to random variation. The CI for green salad (0.9) includes 1, suggesting the association may not be statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, although the high RR indicates a strong potential link warranting further investigation.

Implications of the Results

The significantly elevated relative risks for prime rib, baked potato, and green salad suggest these food items are potential sources of the outbreak. The high attack rate and significant RRs for green salad make it a prime suspect. Further microbiological testing of these foods, especially green salad, would help confirm the source. The data suggest a common source contaminated during preparation or serving, and targeted interventions would be necessary to prevent future outbreaks.

Conclusion

In summary, the investigation utilized a cohort study design, with relative risk as the measure of association. The attack rate calculations and RRs highlighted green salad as the most likely vehicle for infection. The interpretation of confidence intervals reinforced the statistical significance of these findings, guiding public health responses. Identifying the food source, implementing control measures, and preventing cross-contamination are essential steps moving forward.

References

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health Practice, 3rd Edition. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Outbreak of Salmonella serotype Saintpaul infections associated with eating alfalfa sprouts - United States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 58(18).
• Meirik, O. (n.d.). Cohort and case-control studies. Retrieved from https://www.who.int
• Thiese, M. S. (2014). Observational and interventional study design types; an overview. Biochemia Medica, 24(2), 199.
• Gordis, L. (2014). Epidemiology. Elsevier Saunders.
• Bradley, P. (2016). Epidemiology in Public Health Practice. Cengage Learning.
• Last, J. M. (2001). A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Oxford University Press.
• Greenland, S., & Rothman, K. J. (2018). Modern Epidemiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
• Thacker, S. B., et al. (2012). Public Health Surveillance: A Primer. CDC.
• Szklo, M., & Nieto, F. J. (2014). Epidemiology: Beyond the Basics. Jones & Bartlett Learning.