ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF Subject Code and Title PUBH6005 Epidemiology Assessment Assessment 3: Part A: Critical Appraisal Individual/Group Individual Length Part A: 1500 words (+/- 10%) Learning Outcomes...

1 answer below »








































ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF



Subject Code and Title



PUBH6005 Epidemiology



Assessment



Assessment 3:
Part A: Critical Appraisal



Individual/Group



Individual



Length



Part A: 1500 words (+/- 10%)



Learning Outcomes



The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include:


b) Critically examine various research designs, in observation and experimental studies


c) Analyse and interpret measures of association


e) Critically appraise epidemiological studies to answer a specific research question on types of biases, chance, confounding factors, causation and association.



Submission



Part A: Due by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday end of Module 9 (Week 9).



Weighting



Part A: 30%



Total Marks



100 marks



Context


In Assessment 3: Part A, you are able to apply your knowledge of critical appraisal using a checklist to detail bias, chance and confounding factors within research studies. The skills gained from this assessment allow you to critically appraise epidemiological research and undertake comprehensive reviews of research studies in Public Health.


Task


Part A requires you to perform a critical appraisal on 2 research articles. A template is provided on your Blackboard page to guide you through the criteria you need to respond to for each research article.


Your answers should be approximately 1500 words in total.
Please provide the answers in the template for each appraisal.
Please refer to the Instructions for details on how to complete this task.


PUBH6005_Assessment_3A_Brief_Critical Appraisal_ Module_ 9Page1of7


Instructions Part A


Please carefully read the 2 research articles provided on the Blackboard Assessment page. Then, conduct a critically appraisal of each using the checklist template provided, answers can be added directly to the template. Be sure to select the relevant checklist to the study design of the articles provided.


In the template, you are required to answer either “Yes”, “No”or“Unclear”for each criteria. Youwill need to provide the “Evidence” that you found in the article to supportthese r answers. You may state your justification, compare and contrast the findings and/or provide a solution.


Please refer to example template on Blackboard.


Resources for this assignment


CASP UK. Critical appraisal skills program checklists (2018). Retrieved fromhttp://www.casp- uk.net/#!casp-tools- checklists/c18f8


JBI. Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies (2020). Retrieved from


https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools


Referencing


It is essential that you use appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research. Please see more information on referencing herehttps://library.torrens.edu.au/academicskills/apa/tool


Submission Instructions


Submit this task via theAssessment3 link in the main navigation menu in PUBH6005 Epidemiology. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the LMS portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.


Academic Integrity Declaration


I declare that except where I have referenced, the work I am submitting for this assessment task is my own work. I have read and am aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure viewable online athttp://www.torrens.edu.au/policies-and-forms


PUBH6005_Assessment_3A_Brief_Critical Appraisal_ Module_ 9Page2of7


I am aware that I need to keep a copy of all submitted material and their drafts, and I will do so accordingly.


PUBH6005_Assessment_3A_Brief_Critical Appraisal_ Module_ 9Page3of7


Assessment Rubric

























Assessment Attributes



Fail
(Yet to achieve minimum standard) 0-49%



Pass (Functional) 50-64%



Credit (Proficient) 65-74%



Distinction (Advanced) 75-84%



High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100%



Part A



Knowledge and understanding of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis.


Percentage for this criterion = 40%



Limited knowledge and understanding of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis:


Fail to correctly answer most questions in the CASP template in reference to the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis



Functional knowledge and understanding of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis:


Answered some questions in the CASP template with correct identification and description of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis



Proficient knowledge and understanding of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis:


Answered most questions in the CASP template with correct identification and description of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis.



Advanced knowledge and understanding of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis:


Answered all questions in the CASP template with correct identification and clear description of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis.



Exceptional knowledge and understanding of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis:


Answered all questions in the CASP template with correct identification and clear description of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis.


A logical and clear description of the research articles.



PUBH6005_Assessment_3A_Brife_Critical Appraisal __Module 9Page4of7




















Evaluation of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis generalisability, clinical implication and practice.


Percentage for this criterion = 50%



Limited evaluation of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis:


Fail to analyse, interpret and evaluate most questions in the CASP template with regards to the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis.


No evaluation of the research articles provided



Functional evaluation of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis:



Proficient evaluation of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis:


Analysed, interpreted and evaluated most questions in the CASP template with regards to the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis.


An evaluation of the research provided but with limited supporting evidence



Advanced evaluation of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis:


Analysed, interpreted and evaluated all questions in the CASP template with regards to the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis.A logical evaluation of the research article, with additional supporting evidence



Exceptional evaluation of the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis:


Analysed, interpreted and evaluated all questions in the CASP template with regards to the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis.


A sophisticated evaluation of the research articles with additional supporting evidence



Analysed, interpreted and evaluated some questions in the CASP template with regards to the study design features including RCT, bias, confounding factors, chance, statistical analysis.


Limited evacuation of the research article provided



PUBH6005_Assessment_3A_Brife_Critical Appraisal __Module 9Page5of7














Correct citation of key resources and evidence


Percentage for this criterion = 10%



Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas.


Sufficient research technique not demonstrated Referencing is omitted or does not resemble APA.



Demonstrates use of credible and relevant resources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed.


More comprehensive research technique required Referencing resembles APA, with frequent or repeated errors.



Demonstrates use of credible resources to support and develop ideas.


Good research technique demonstrated
Referencing resembles APA, with occasional errors.



Demonstrates use of good quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and statements.


Detailed research technique demonstrated
APA referencing is free from errors.



Demonstrates use of high- quality, credible and relevant resources to support and develop arguments and position statements.


Comprehensive research technique demonstrated APA referencing is free from errors.



PUBH6005_Assessment_3A_Brife_Critical Appraisal __Module 9Page6of7





















The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment



SLO b)



Critically examine various research designs, in observation and experimental studies



SLO c)



Analyse and interpret measures of association



SLO e)



Critically appraise epidemiological studies to answer a specific research question on types of biases, chance, confounding factors, causation and association.



PUBH6005_Assessment_3A_Brife_Critical Appraisal __Module 9Page7of7

information-hkxfy0ue-ngzjnu1k.zip
Answered 1 days AfterJul 30, 2021PUBH6005

Answer To: ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF Subject Code and Title PUBH6005 Epidemiology Assessment Assessment 3: Part A:...

Vidya answered on Aug 01 2021
154 Votes
Template for Assessment 3 Part A
Table 1 Cross-sectional study:
     (Insert the title of the paper you are appraising)
    Critical appraisal questions
    Underline your answer
    1.Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    2.Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    3.Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    4.Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    5.Were confounding factors identified?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    6.Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    7.Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
    8.Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
    Yes/No/Unclear
    Evidence: justification, compare and contrasting or/and providing solution
Add additional pages if needed
Reference: (insert the reference here according to APA 7th edition)
Table 2 Case-control study:
    Case-Control Study of Risk Factors for Human Infection with a New Zoonotic Paramyxovirus, Nipah Virus, during a 1998–1999 Outbreak of Severe Encephalitis in Malaysia
    Critical appraisal questions
    Underline your answer
    1.Did the study address a clearly focused issue?
    Yes
    Evidence: This research affirms that nearby contact with pigs, particularly wiped out pigs, was the essential wellspring of human Nipah disease during 1998–1999 in Malaysia. The activities that included direct contact with pigs were related with the most serious danger of disease; nonetheless, not all case patients revealed such openings, and it is conceivable that different creatures might be the wellspring of certain contaminations (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    2. Did the authors use an appropriate method to answer their question?
    Yes
    Evidence: Nipah infection is most firmly identified with the Hendra infection, which has been related with sickness episodes among ponies and people in Australia (Murray K, et al., 1995; Hooper PT, et al., 1996). Hendra infection seems to spread to people through direct contact with body liquids of contaminated ponies (McCormack JG, et al., 1999; Williamson MM, et al., 1998).
Hence case-control studies were the best method to characterize exposures associated with Nipah infection of humans during the outbreak in Malaysia (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    3. Were the cases recruited in an acceptable way?
    Yes
    Evidence: The appropriate screening procedures were followed while recruiting the case group of patients for the study.
Encephalitis patients whose serum specimen(s) tried positive for Nipah neutralizer were incorporated as case patients. Also, people chose as controls whose serum specimen(s) tried positive for Nipah counter acting agent were renamed as case patients (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    4. Were the controls selected in an acceptable way?
    Yes
    Evidence: Two sets of controls were selected: community-farm controls and case-farm controls. Community-farm controls were chosen to recognize qualities of homesteads where human Nipah disease was distinguished; these controls were people who either lived or chipped away at pig ranches with no detailed human encephalitis cases. Case-farm controls were chosen to distinguish explicit cultivating exercises related with Nipah contamination of people; these controls were people who either lived or chipped away at pig ranches with known instances of human Nipah disease (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    5. Was the exposure accurately measured to minimise bias?
    Yes
    Evidence: To minimize the bias, the antibodies tests were performed considering the antigens of Hendra virus that also cross reacts with Nipah. Sera were tested for IgM and IgG antibodies by using an IgM–capture antibody EIA and an indirect EIA, respectively (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    6. Aside from the experimental intervention, were the groups treated equally?
    Yes
    Evidence: The case patients were more when compared to the control group. This was because many of the control patients were different in ethnicity and occupation. Most of them had left the place before the study began.
Apart from this, the case and control groups were treated equally (Umesh D. Parashar, et al., 2000).
    7. Have the authors taken account of the potential confounding factors in the design and/or in their analysis?
    Yes
    Evidence: Contaminations were almost certain than controls to work with pigs on the ranch. Contamination was not related with direct contact with all pigs among people who chipped away at the homestead, yet it was altogether connected with direct contact with pigs that gave off an impression of being wiped out (Paton NI, et al., 1999). Contamination was not related with performing exercises that typically didn't include contact with pigs, like cleaning pigpens and washing pigs with a hose (Williamson MM, et al., 1998). Notwithstanding, contamination was related with taking care of pigs and with exercises including close contact with pigs, for example, preparing child pigs (cutting tails, labeling ears, and giving iron prescriptions), infusing or curing pigs, aiding pig reproducing (assortment of semen from pigs, manual semen injection of sows), aiding the introduction of piglets, and taking care of dead pigs. At the point when...
SOLUTION.PDF
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here
Have files?