Visit the and explore some topics of interest to you. Discuss how epidemiologic methods are used to evaluate Healthy People 2020 objectives. Give an example. The example can be one you created or one from an actual study. Include the primary goal/purpose of the descriptive or analytical study, design type in the category chosen, uses of analytic or descriptive type, at least one advantage and disadvantage of the design type.

Epidemiology is a vital discipline within public health that focuses on understanding the distribution and determinants of health and disease in populations. It utilizes various epidemiologic methods to evaluate and monitor health objectives, such as those outlined in Healthy People 2020. This essay will discuss how epidemiologic methods are used to evaluate Healthy People 2020 objectives and provide an example, highlighting the primary goals and design types, uses of analytical or descriptive methods, as well as advantages and disadvantages.

Healthy People 2020 is a national initiative developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to provide a set of science-based, 10-year objectives aimed at improving the health of all Americans. It encompasses a wide range of health topics, including oral health, injury and violence prevention, and infectious diseases, among others.

Epidemiologic methods are essential in assessing progress toward achieving these objectives. These methods incorporate analytical and descriptive study designs to understand the burden of disease, identify risk factors, and evaluate the impact of interventions. Analytical studies typically investigate associations between exposure and outcome, while descriptive studies provide a comprehensive overview of the distribution and characteristics of a health condition or population.

As an example, let us consider the objective within Healthy People 2020 related to reducing the incidence of foodborne illnesses. The primary goal of this study would be to measure and monitor the occurrence and characteristics of foodborne illnesses in the population, to inform prevention and control efforts. To achieve this, an analytical study design known as a case-control study can be employed.

In a case-control study, individuals with a particular outcome (cases) are compared with those without the outcome (controls) in terms of their exposure to specific risk factors. In the context of foodborne illnesses, cases would consist of individuals diagnosed with a confirmed infection, while controls would be individuals unaffected by the illness. Epidemiologists would collect data on various exposures, such as types of food consumed or food handling practices, to assess their association with the development of foodborne illnesses.

This analytical study design allows for the determination of associations between specific risk factors and the occurrence of foodborne illnesses. The findings can then guide public health interventions, such as targeted education campaigns or changes in food safety regulations, to reduce the incidence of these illnesses. One advantage of this design is its efficiency in investigating rare outcomes, as case-control studies require a smaller sample size compared to other designs. Additionally, the temporality between exposure and outcome can be assessed more easily, providing evidence for causality. However, case-control studies are susceptible to selection and recall biases, which may affect the validity of the results.

In contrast, descriptive epidemiologic methods can be employed to examine the distribution of foodborne illnesses within a population. For instance, a descriptive study design known as a cross-sectional study can be used. In this design, a representative sample of individuals from the population is assessed at a specific point in time, and data regarding the presence or absence of the outcome of interest (in this case, foodborne illnesses) and potential risk factors are collected. Epidemiologists can use this data to calculate prevalence rates and identify patterns of the disease within various subgroups.

A cross-sectional study provides a snapshot of the distribution of foodborne illnesses, allowing for the identification of high-risk populations or geographical areas that may benefit from targeted interventions. However, it only provides associations and does not establish causality or temporality. Additionally, recall and selection biases may be present, affecting the accuracy and generalizability of the findings.

In conclusion, epidemiologic methods play a critical role in evaluating Healthy People 2020 objectives by providing valuable insights into the distribution and determinants of health and disease. Analytical study designs, such as case-control studies, are useful in evaluating associations between exposures and outcomes, while descriptive study designs, such as cross-sectional studies, provide a comprehensive overview of the distribution and characteristics of a health condition or population. Despite their advantages, these study designs also have limitations, such as potential biases that may impact the validity of the results. Nevertheless, the application of epidemiologic methods in evaluating Healthy People 2020 objectives helps to inform public health interventions and promote the achievement of population health goals.

Do you need us to help you on this or any other assignment?

Make an Order Now