NR 503 Week 3: Discussion: Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

A case-control study is an observational study that examines factors related to diseases or outcomes. The study begins with a group of cases, mainly the participants with the outcome of interest. Subsequently, the researcher creates a second group of participants, termed the controls, similar to the case participants but do not have the outcome of interest (Andrade, 2022). On the other hand, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is a prospective study that assesses the effectiveness of a new intervention or treatment. RCTs provide a rigorous tool to evaluate the cause-effect relationships between an intervention and outcome. Randomization balances the participants’ characteristics between the groups, allowing acknowledgment of any differences in the outcome (Capili & Anastasi, 2023). Case-control studies are observational and do not provide the same level of evidence as RCTs.

Case-control studies come with pros and cons. One advantage is their methods allow researchers to study rare conditions and examine their associated historical factors. In addition, the design allows the examination of multiple risk factors simultaneously (Andrade, 2022). Case-control studies are also valuable during disease outbreaks as they identify potential links and exposures contributing to the outbreak. On the other hand, they have the potential for recall bias, which is the increased chance that participants with the outcome will remember and report exposures than those without the outcome (Andrade, 2022). This can lead to a false conclusion that there are links between exposure and disease.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

Correlational studies identify differences in a population’s characteristics based on whether or not the participants have been naturally exposed to an event of interest. The researcher defines a set of variables and assesses hypothesized relations among the variables. The dependent variable is the study outcome, while the independent variables are the elements being assessed for relations (Janse et al., 2021). Case-control studies fall at the base of the research pyramid. They are less reliable than RCTs and cohort studies because demonstrating a statistical connection does not mean one factor necessarily led to another.

References

Andrade, C. (2022). Research Design: Case-Control Studies. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 44(3), 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176221090104

Capili, B., & Anastasi, J. K. (2023). Efficacy Randomized Controlled Trials. The American Journal of Nursing, 123(3), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000921808.23646.01

Janse, R. J., Hoekstra, T., Jager, K. J., Zoccali, C., Tripepi, G., Dekker, F. W., & van Diepen, M. (2021). Conducting correlation analysis: important limitations and pitfalls. Clinical Kidney Journal, 14(11), 2332–2337. https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfab085

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Epidemiological Methods and Measurements

Discussion

Purpose

This discussion board content is intended to facilitate learning for students through engaging dialogues as they achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies associated with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize, integrate, apply and critically appraise their knowledge to their selected field of practice.

The use of discussions provides students with opportunities to contribute graduate level-appropriate knowledge and experience to the topic in a safe, caring, and fluid environment that models professional and social interaction. The ebb and flow of a discussion is based upon the composition of student and faculty interaction in the quest for relevant scholarship.

Participation in the discussion generates opportunities for students to actively engage in the written ideas of others by carefully reading, researching, reflecting, and responding to the contributions of their peers and course faculty. Discussions foster the development of members into a community of learners as they share ideas and inquiries, consider perspectives that may be different from their own, and integrate knowledge from other disciplines.

Due Date

Initial prompt due by Wednesday, 11:59 PM MT of week 3
One peer and one faculty or two peer posts due by Sunday 11:59 PM MT of week 3

A 10% late penalty will be imposed for initial discussions posted after the weekly deadline regardless of the number of days late. No postings will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0). Week 8 discussion closes on Saturday at 11:59pm MT.

Total Points Possible: 60 Points

Preparing the Assignment

This week we are comparing and contrasting epidemiological methods of research; case-control and cohort study methods. Select either the case-control or cohort study method and compare its features, the methodology, to a randomized controlled trial using the following questions. Please format, organize, your responses using each question below:

What is the fundamental difference between the method you have chosen (either the case-control or cohort method) and the randomized controlled trial?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the study method you chose (case-control or cohort study)?
What are the characteristics of a correlational study?
Where does the method you chose (case-control or cohort study) fall on the research pyramid? What does where it is on the research pyramid mean?

Post your response to the DB. Your analysis should have in-text citations and utilize a scholarly voice with APA formatting.

Respond to a total of two posts: Either two (2) peer posts or a peer and faculty post (all faculty posts require a response), with a minimum of one paragraph of 4-5 sentences, on two (2) different days of the week. Your reply post should be specific to this week’s topic of epidemiological research methods and should integrate in-text citation(s).

Your reply post/s should integrate course content (such as course terminology) related to the study method as well as an integration of in-text citations along with a scholarly voice and APA formatting. The textbook may be utilized as a resource.

Posting Directions

Posts should be made on a minimum of 3 separate days/dates.
All faculty replies to students must be responded to directly in the discussion board.
Minimum posting is:

- Initial discussion board post to the weekly prompt, two peer posts (if there are no faculty postings), or one peer post and a faculty post.

**To see view the grading criteria/rubric, please click on the 3 dots in the box at the end of the solid gray bar above the discussion board title and then Show Rubric.

DISCUSSION CONTENT
Category	Points	%	Description
Scholarly	13	22%	The student actively stimulates and sustains inquiry by making reflective insightful comments, asking thoughtful questions and/or engaging in a scholarly discussion. The student expresses a clear idea of the topic under discussion and sustains inquiry in order to explore relevant issues. The student recognizes values or values conflict as things that form the assumption basis of arguments and recognizes when it is important to acknowledge these values. The student recognizes the accuracy, logic, relevance, or clarity of statements. The student asks clarifying questions and knows when clarifying questions need to be asked. The student distinguishes fact from opinion.
Application	20	33%	All components of discussion prompt addressed (met) in initial posting. The student’s writing conveys an understanding of significant ideas relevant to the issue under discussion. This is indicated by integration of course and weekly objectives, as well as readings from text and articles. All posts should make correct use of terminology, precise selection of the pieces of information required to make a point, correct and appropriate use of examples and counterexamples, demonstrations of which distinctions are important to make, and explanations that are concise and to the point. Information and knowledge are accurate. The student elaborates statements with accurate explanations, reasons, or evidence from the course and/or weekly objectives. All postings integrate scholarly sources to support points consistently.
Interactive Dialogue	10	16.6%	Responds to ideas in a way that advances discussion with engagement, depth, rigor, and application. Interacts with a professional tone and is able to express opinions with ownership and without judgement. Chooses to include professional experience to the discussion board mindful of appropriateness and boundaries. Experience is integrated as it supports the discussion board topic and utilizes scholarly references to support overall topic.
	43	72%	Total CONTENT Points = 43 pts

DISCUSSION FORMAT
Category	Points	%	Description
APA	12	20%	In text citations are formatted per APA 7th ed. Reference list is formatted per APA 7th ed. Spelling, grammar, and scholarly tone are per APA 7th ed.
Spelling / Grammar etc.	5	8%	Posts should utilize correct spelling and grammar (sentence structure and avoidance of slang or casual language).
	17	28%	Total FORMAT Points = 17 pts
	60	100%	DISCUSSION TOTAL = 60 points

NR503_Discussion Board_Sept19 (2)

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion Content Possible Points =43 PointsScholarly Work

Required elements:
Reflective, insightful comments and/or scholarly discussion
Clarity of topic
Recognize values
Recognize accuracy, logic, relevancy, clarity of statements
Ask clarifying questions

13 ptsExcellent

The student actively stimulates and sustains inquiry by making reflective insightful comments, asking thoughtful questions and/or engaging in a scholarly discussion (critical thinking and reflection present). The student expresses a clear idea of the topic under discussion and sustains inquiry in order to explore relevant issues. The student recognizes values or values conflict as things that form the assumption basis of arguments and recognizes when it is important to acknowledge these values. The student recognizes the accuracy, logic, relevance, or clarity of statements. The student asks clarifying questions and knows when clarifying questions need to be asked.

12 ptsV. Good

Discussion postings display an understanding of the required readings and underlying concepts including correct use and integration of weekly/course terminology. Content contains some but not all of: The student has a clear idea of the topic under discussion and sustains inquiry in order to explore relevant issues. Work shows some connection to previous weeks’ content as appropriate. The student recognizes values or value conflict as things that form the assumption basis of arguments and recognizes when it is important to acknowledge these values. The student recognizes the accuracy, logic, relevance, or clarity of statements. The student asks clarifying questions and knows when clarifying questions need to be asked. The student distinguishes fact from opinion.

11 ptsSatisfactory

The student relies on the momentum of the group to motivate inquiry. The student generally distinguishes fact from opinions. The student may be repetitive with comments, repeat but does not add substantive information to the discussion. The student takes a position, but with little evidence or explanation. There is little to no evidence of critical thinking, analysis, or connection of course content from week to week.

7 ptsNeeds Improvement

The student accepts ideas of others without much thought. The student jumps randomly from one aspect of an issue to another. The student provides little relevant information or contributes little to the discussion. Opinions may be stated as facts. The student shows little evidence of understanding the topic under discussion and how to sustain the inquiry to adequately explore issues related to it. There is little sense of which information is of most importance and no connection of course content.

0 ptsUnsatisfactory

No posting

13 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication of Course Knowledge (Understanding of Readings and Outside References)Demonstrates critical thinking and integration of course concepts that builds depth and rigor by use of previous week’s content.

20 ptsExcellent

All components of discussion prompt addressed (requirements met) in initial posting. The student understands significant ideas relevant to the issue under discussion. This is indicated by correct use of terminology, precise selection of the pieces of information required to make a point, correct and appropriate use of examples and counterexamples, demonstrations of which distinctions are important to make, and explanations that are concise and to the point. Information and knowledge are accurate. The student elaborates statements with accurate explanations, reasons, or evidence. Initial posting integrates scholarly sources to support content consistently throughout.

18 ptsV. Good

All components of discussion prompt addressed met through multiple postings. The student understands significant ideas relevant to the issue under discussion. This is indicated by some but not all of the following: correct use of terminology, precise selection of the pieces of information required to make a point, correct and appropriate use of examples and counterexamples, demonstrations of which distinctions are important to make, and explanations that are concise and to the point. Information and knowledge are accurate. The student elaborates statements with accurate explanations, reasons, or evidence. Initial posting includes scholarly sources.

17 ptsSatisfactory

Up to 75% of the prompt components addressed in one or more postings The student accepts ideas of others without much thought. The student jumps randomly from one aspect of an issue to another. The student provides little relevant information or contributes little to the discussion. Opinions may be stated as facts. The student shows little evidence of understanding the topic under discussion and how to sustain the inquiry to adequately explore issues related to it. Initial post may include source which may be related but not scholarly or source may seem unrelated and be scholarly.

10 ptsNeeds Improvement

50% or less of the prompt addressed in one or more postings. Initial post response may or may not have a source that supports that scholarly application of content.

0 ptsUnsatisfactory

No posting

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInteractive DialogueReply includes:

Reference/scholarly source (all reply posts)

Reply posts reflect weekly content and weekly objectives.

Reply posts demonstrate graduate level scholarly dialogue.

10 ptsExcellent

Responds to ideas in a way that advances discussion with engagement, depth, rigor, and application. Interacts with a professional tone and is able to express opinions with ownership and without judgement. Chooses to include professional experience to the discussion board mindful of appropriateness and boundaries. Experience is integrated as it supports the discussion board topic and utilizes scholarly references to support overall topic. Includes scholarly references in all peer/faculty reply posts.

9 ptsV. Good

Incorporates and acknowledges ideas of others in attempt to advance the discussion (perhaps in predictable ways). Includes scholarly reference/s in all peer/faculty reply posts.

8 ptsSatisfactory

Responds to peer posts without adding to discussion, lacks rigor. Non-substantive. May or may not include scholarly references.

5 ptsNeeds Improvement

Reply is not related to weekly DB prompt. Does not include references or references included are not scholarly or supportive of the content.

0 ptsUnsatisfactory

No posting

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion Format Possible Points =17 PointsAPA
(*) APA style references and in text citations are required; however, there are no deductions for errors in indentation or spacing of references. All elements of the reference otherwise must be included.

12 ptsExcellent

In text citations and reference lists are formatted per APA current ed.

11 ptsV. Good

1-3 APA errors

10 ptsSatisfactory

4-5 APA errors

6 ptsNeeds Improvement

6 or more APA errors

0 ptsUnsatisfactory

No posting

12 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Syntax, Spelling

5 ptsExcellent

Written responses are free of grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.

4 ptsV. Good

Written responses are largely free of grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.? (Approximately 1-2).

3 ptsSatisfactory

Written responses include some grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors that distract the reader.?(Approximately 3-4).

2 ptsNeeds Improvement

Written responses contain numerous grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors that distract the reader (5 or more).

0 ptsUnsatisfactory

No posting

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParticipationDiscussion late penalty deductions:

A 10% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadline on Wednesday, 11:59 MT, regardless of the number of days late. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0)

0 ptsManual Deductions

0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTotal Participation Responses:A 10% penalty will be imposed for not entering the minimum number/type of interactive dialogue posts OR not posting on the minimum required number of days: Three days. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0)

0 ptsManual Deductions

0 pts

Total Points: 60