Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
17 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Target population |
general population that the study seeks to understand |
|
|
source population |
specific individuals from which a sample will be drawn |
|
|
sample population |
individuals asked to participate |
|
|
study population |
participants |
|
|
5 sampling options |
convenience simple random systematic stratified cluster |
|
|
simple random sampling |
each person has an equal chance of being selected. |
|
|
convenience |
when you take people that are easy--like first 20 people to walk in the door |
|
|
systematic sampling |
every nth person is selected, random start |
|
|
stratified sampling |
simple random samples selected from each of several strata--usually split along with the population |
|
|
cluster sampling |
an area is divided into geographic clusters and some clusters are selected for inclusion |
|
|
descriptive studies |
desctiption of health outcome by person, place, time initial exploration of possible exposures related to or or risk factors for the health outcome |
|
|
ecologic studies |
strengths: you don't have to collect data, often good first step for environmental issues limitations: may suffer from the ecologic fallacy, data are at the group/aggregate level |
|
|
cross sectional |
•Strengths: –Datacollection is usually quick and inexpensive–Nationaland state representative data already exist, are readily available, and arefree!•Limitations: –Measureprevalence of disease, not incidence –Maysuffer from the “chicken/egg” problem (simultaneous measurement of exposure & disease) |
|
|
analytic studies |
•Association: exposures/riskfactors associated with the health outcome •Causation: exposures/risk factors causally related to the health outcome (assessedby quantity of evidence, study rigor & criteria)•Evaluation: effectivenessof interventions |
|
|
Case control |
•Strengths: –Quickestand least expensive analytic design–Goodfor rare diseases or outcomes•Limitations: –Identificationof appropriate control group can be difficult –Proneto certain types of bias (especially recall bias) |
|
|
cohort studies |
•Strengths: –Consideredthe strongest type of observational study design –Goodfor rare exposures or risk factors••Limitations: –Usuallymore time-consuming & expensive than case-control ordescriptive studies –Biasstill possible but less problematic (loss to follow-up or lack ofgeneralizability could be a challenge) |
|
|
Intervention |
•Strengths: –Providesthe best evidence for causality –•Limitations: –Canbe expensive and time-consuming–Opportunityfor “adverse events” –Impossibleor unethical in many situations |
