A set of training materials for professionals working in intervention epidemiology, public health microbiology and infection control and hospital hygiene.
Need help with your investigation or report writing? Ask the Expert. Free advice from the professional community.
You can't make decissions on this page's approval status because you have not the owner or an admin on this page's Group.
Jean Claude Desenclos
Many epidemiologists consider that the studies they are conducting are measurement exercises. Simple studies include measurements of disease frequency which may be expressed as risks, rates, prevalence or odds. More advanced studies will aim at identifying the causes of diseases and the effect of specific exposures on disease occurrence. This achieved by comparing disease frequency between sub groups of a population. This comparison can be expressed as a difference or a ratio, so called "effect measure".
A core function of epidemiologists is to measure the causal effect of an exposure on the occurrence of a disease. To measure a causal effect we would have ideally to compare occurrence of disease in exposed persons to what would have happened in the same persons, at the same time, in the absence of exposure. This is however theoretical since such two measurements, in the same group of persons under study, are not feasible during the same time period.In order to approach this theoretical situation as closely as possible, we will use as unexposed group a population similar to the exposed group but for the exposure. In these two populations (or in 2 subsets of the same population, exposed and unexposed), we will then measure and compare disease occurrence.
To compare disease occurrence between exposed and unexposed populations epidemiologists will have either to assign exposure or to observe populations naturally exposed. Assignment of exposure is only ethically feasible when exposure is potentially protective (treatment, vaccine, preventive measures). Observation of accidental or naturally assigned exposures will allow us to study the effect of potentially harmful exposures. To measure the effect of exposure several types of epidemiological studies are available. In cohort studies the frequency of disease is compared between a group of exposed and unexposed cohorts, while in case control studies the exposure status is compared between persons with and without disease. There are several advantages and disadvantages of cohort and case control studies which will be presented in this chapter. Furthermore, case cross over studies will be discussed in this chapter in which exposure information is obtained from the same case group but during different periods of time. The case to case study design, a type of case control study when the disease of interest can be subclassified in two or several groups that have specific risk factors, will be highlighted briefly.
Join the discussion about this article in the forum!
Arnold Bosman posted on 7/5/2011 9:01:11 AM:
We could debate whether or not we are able to 'measure' a causal effect. In my view, what we measure are observations (counts) expressed in numbers, rates, risks for example.
The comparison is already a computation, resulting in an 'effect', which caj be consided an estmation of the effect in the population.
If the effect (e.g. measure of association) is causal or not, cannot be measured, not tested. It can merely be inferred.
marcelius atanga replied on 6/16/2015 10:01:13 AM:
I think even when we take a survey and count, at the end the numbers obtained are only estimates,
and so more important to me is to what extend should an estimate be consider useful, in fact what are tolerable error margins, given that no 2 situations are truely comparable?
Arnold Bosman replied on 6/16/2015 10:33:11 AM:
Perhaps we should open a philosophy wiki?
You need to be logged in to post comments.
You can log in here. You can register here if you haven't done so yet.