Below is a discussion assignment. The answer has to have a minimum of 350 words with scholarly/peer-reviewed citation(s) and reference(s). Also, in order to answer the discussion I have links that was posted below as well. Thank you.
If you were the state epidemiologist and it was suspected that smoke from the local toy factory was connected to adverse health outcomes among the town’s residents, what type of cohort study would you conduct to further investigate this concern? Why? What limitations exist in your choice of study?
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
When investigating a suspected connection between adverse health outcomes and exposure to a particular risk factor, epidemiologists must determine the most appropriate study design. In this scenario, as a state epidemiologist, I would conduct a cohort study to investigate the suspected link between smoke from the local toy factory and adverse health outcomes among the town’s residents.
Type of Cohort Study:
In particular, I would conduct a prospective cohort study. This design involves identifying individuals who are exposed and unexposed to the risk factor of interest and following them over time to assess the incidence of the health outcome. In this case, individuals living in the vicinity of the toy factory would be identified as the exposed group, while those living outside of this area would serve as the unexposed group.
Why a Prospective Cohort Study?
A prospective cohort study would be the most appropriate study design in this scenario as it is ideal for evaluating a suspected causal relationship between an exposure and a health outcome. Additionally, it allows for the collection of detailed information on the study participants, including exposure history, potential confounders, and health outcomes, allowing for the determination of the strength of the association and potential cause.
Limitations of Prospective Cohort Study:
One limitation of this prospective cohort study is the potential for selection bias, where those who agree to participate may be different from those who decline. There may also be differences in the health outcomes between the two groups, which may confound the association between exposure and health outcome. Furthermore, prospective cohort studies can be expensive and time-consuming, requiring long-term follow-up of the study participants, making it difficult to conduct in certain circumstances.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, a prospective cohort study is the most appropriate study design for investigating the suspected link between smoke from the local toy factory and adverse health outcomes among the town’s residents. Though this method holds limitations, it is the most efficient way to determine the strength of the association and potential cause between exposure and health outcome.
