BIO 550 Week 5 Discussion Questions
BIO 550 Week 5 Discussion Questions
BIO 550 Week 5 Discussion Questions
BIO 550 Week 5 Discussion Questions
DQ1 What is the difference between incidence and prevalence? Present supportive details in your explanation.
Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on BIO 550 Week 5 Discussion Questions completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW
DQ2 Describe when and why you would use relative risk. Justify your rationale.
Calculation of Prevalence or Incidence
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on BIO 550 Week 5 Discussion Questions done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
-
- When calculating prevalence, researchers must also deal with the denominator issue – who is in the population? This includes questions of risk – is the measure directed at the whole population or only those at risk? In the case of period prevalence, the denominator may have changed over time due to loss to follow-up or migration.
- Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: BIO 550 Week 5 Discussion Questions
Three alternative suggestions for use when calculating population based prevalence/incidence rates have been made when dealing with MCHP data. Typically three years of data have been used to identify conditions within the MCHP data, but other time periods can also be used. Researchers and programmers may find point or one year prevalence easer to calculate than longer periods.
-
-
- Cohort type study using the whole population found to be resident in Manitoba across all three years and falling within the age limits defined for the study for the whole time.
- Use of a single date (e.g. Dec 31) within the middle year for the population and identifying the location of residence by the most frequent occurrence and the age as of the population date. This the most common method used at MCHP.
- Define the population based on the average number of individuals across each of the three years.
-
4. Sensitivity Testing
-
- Currently no systematic comparison at MCHP has been made to determine the difference between each method but
Roos et al. (1999) (Appendix A.))
-
- showed very small difference between different denominator calculations. This same paper indicates that changes in the methods for screening diagnosis may have a greater impact. Unpublished work done as part of the First Nations deliverable showed a difference of approximately 3% between two methods of identifying diabetics (19% – 22%) across all of Manitoba. It is likely that the latter two methods for identifying the population will over-estimate the prevalence rate.
- Researchers should be careful not to confuse a 3 year case definition with a 3 year prevalence measure. Three years of data (e.g. physician claims) can be used to identify cases. This information could then be used to calculate either point or one year period prevalence. Point and one year period prevalence is more commonly used as a measure of prevalence in the literature.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||
Don’t wait until the last minute
Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.