(Trimester Three – 2023/2024)
School of Medicine & Dentistry, Griffith University
ASSIGNMENT TWO
INSTRUCTIONS:
THIS ASSIGNMENT IS WORTH 35% OF THE OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THIS COURSE. IT WILL BE MARKED OUT OF 40 MARKS.
IT IS INTENDED TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT AND, AS SUCH, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO WORK ON YOUR OWN WITHOUT RECEIVING HELP FROM ANYONE ELSE OR DISCUSSING OR COLLABORATING WITH YOUR CLASSMATES.
THE NUMBER OF MARKS ALLOCATED TO EACH QUESTION IS SHOWN AT THE END OF EACH QUESTION. UNLESS STATED, ASSUME THAT ALL PARTS OF A QUESTION CARRY EQUAL WEIGHT.
PLEASE USE MICROSOFT WORD DOCUMENT TO TYPE YOUR ANSWERS USING A MINIMUM FONT SIZE OF 11 AND 1.5 LINE SPACING. INCLUDE QUESTION NUMBERS IN YOUR RESPONSES. PLEASE INCLUDE CORRECT REFERECNING IN THIS ASSIGNMENT (especially the given reading). A TOTAL OF 2,500 WORDS OR LESS (EXCLUDIN REFERENCES) WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS.
PLEASE USE YOUR FULL NAME AS THE FILE NAME WHEN SUBMITTING THE ASSIGNMENT. THE ASSIGNMENT IS DUE BY 29 January 2024, Monday 11.59AM (Week 11). Please submit this Assignment (an electronic copy) through Turnitin link on Learning@Griffith (Assignment Two Submission Point)
7312MED EPIDEMIOLOGY: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES
(Trimester Three – 2023/2024)
Assignment 2 Questions
Read the paper by Bond, Egan, Kearns, Clark and Tannahill (2012) (required reading) and answer the following questions.
- What type of epidemiological study design was applied in this study? (1 mark) Identify two key features of this type of design in the study? (2 marks) (Total: 3 marks)
- The authors have established two research questions (p.300) in relation to their research aims. According to these 2 questions, state two research hypotheses. (2 marks)
- What is the study factor (0.5 mark) and how was this factor defined/measured (1.5 marks)? (Total: 2 marks)
- What is/are outcome factor(s)? (1 mark) How was the factor/ were they measured? (3 marks) (Total: 4 marks)
- Do the main findings presented in Table 2 suggest any significant association between the study factor and the outcome factor? (1 mark) What do the results suggest? Use the OR and 95%CI values to justify your response. (2 marks) (Total: 3 marks)
- Identify the possible source(s) of selection bias that might have been introduced into the study? (1 mark) What effects could this bias have had on the observed association between the study factor and the outcome factor(s)? Provide reasoning to support your answers. (4 marks) (Total: 5 marks)
- Were recall bias and interviewer bias present in this study? Could any other sources of bias have occurred? How could the different sources of information bias have influenced the results (measured association)? Discuss your view briefly. (Total: 5 marks)
- How have the authors addressed the issue of confounding? (1 mark) What are the potential confounders identified by the authors? With regard to Table 2, have the confounding factors influenced the association between the study factor and the outcome factor? Why or why not? (3 marks) (Total: 4 marks)
- According to the results shown on Table 3, have the authors answered their second research question (p.300)? (Hints: examine OR, 95%CI changes, combining the p values to discuss the authors’ summary on p. 302, the end of RESULTS section) (Total: 4 marks)
- As illustrated by the authors, the smoking rates in both HI and non-HI groups were much higher than the national norm of 26% for men and 23% for women. Could the high smoking rates (higher than the national average) observed in the study population be likely due to chance or factors not related to receiving HI? Explain your reasons briefly. (Total:3 marks)
- Which of the Bradford Hill’s criteria for evaluating causality can be established through this study in consideration of the association between HI and intention to quit smoking? Give one reason for each of your selected criterion. (Total: 3 marks)
- Has internal validity been established in this study? To whom could the results be generalised? (Total: 2 marks)
Total: 40 marks
- END OF ASSIGNMENT TWO QUESTIONS –
