public health information network phin series ii n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Public Health Information Network (PHIN) Series II PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Public Health Information Network (PHIN) Series II

Public Health Information Network (PHIN) Series II

401 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Public Health Information Network (PHIN) Series II

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Public Health Information Network (PHIN) Series II Outbreak Investigation Methods: From Mystery to Mastery

  2. Series IISession III “Study Design”

  3. Series II Sessions

  4. Access Series Files Online • Session slides • Session activities (when applicable) • Session evaluation forms • Speaker biographies Alternate Web site:

  5. Site Sign-in Sheet Please submit your site sign-in sheet and session evaluation forms to: Suzi Silverstein Director, Education and Training Emergency Preparedness & Response Programs FAX: (804) 225 - 3888

  6. Session Overview • Session I summary and review: How we arrived at the research hypothesis • Analytic Epidemiology • Developing and testing hypotheses • Study Designs: • selection, implementation, and data analysis

  7. Today’s Presenters Amy Nelson, PhD, MPH Epidemiologist NC Center for Public Health Preparedness Sarah Pfau, MPH Moderator

  8. “Study Design” Learning Objectives • Understand what an analytic study contributes to an epidemiological outbreak investigation • Understand the differences in methodology between cohort, case-control, clinical trial, and cross-sectional study designs • Be able to describe the advantages and disadvantages of alternative study designs

  9. “Study Design” Learning Objectives (cont’d.) • Know how to assess which study design to apply during an outbreak investigation • Understand how to select cases and controls in a case-control study design • Know how to interpret odds ratios from case-control study data and risk ratios from cohort study data

  10. Session I Review

  11. Session I Review • Detected an outbreak of gastroenteritis at a university in Texas, based on a March 11 complaint from a student • Conducted: • active case finding • chart reviews • hypothesis generating interviews • 75 cases detected by March 12

  12. Session I Review (cont’d.) • Collected stool specimens • All negative for bacterial pathogens • Assume viral pathogen • Earliest date of exposure was March 5 • Conducted interviews with 7 of the earliest cases (all students) • Only commonality was 6 of 7 reported eating at deli bar of main campus cafeteria

  13. Session I Review (cont’d.) • Developed a leading hypothesis with the main campus cafeteria as the suspect • No source food identified • Interviewed 30 of 31 cafeteria staff members • Staff member who declined interview worked at deli bar* * Today’s session includes a follow up investigation with this staff member

  14. Session I Review (cont’d.) • Investigators closed deli bar on March 12th based on: • Link between 6 out of 7 interviewed cases and a common food source • Several unsanitary food handling practices identified via an environmental health investigation

  15. Basic Steps of An Outbreak Investigation • Verify the diagnosis and confirm the outbreak • Define a case and conduct case finding • Tabulate and orient data: time, place, person • Take immediate control measures • Formulate and test hypothesis • Plan and execute additional studies • Implement and evaluate control measures • Communicate findings

  16. Analytic Epidemiology Hypotheses

  17. Descriptive vs. Analytic Epidemiology • Descriptive Epidemiology deals with the questions: Who, What, When, and Where • Analytic Epidemiology deals with the remaining questions: Why and How

  18. Analytic Epidemiology • Used to help identify the cause of disease • Typically involves designing a study to test hypotheses developed using descriptive epidemiology

  19. Exposure and Outcome A study considers two main factors: exposure and outcome • Exposure refers to factors that might influence one’s risk of disease • Outcome refers to case definitions

  20. Case Definition • A set of standard diagnostic criteria that must be fulfilled in order to identify a person as a case of a particular disease • Ensures that all persons who are counted as cases actually have the same disease • Typically includes clinical criteria (lab results, symptoms, signs) and sometimes restrictions on time, place, and person

  21. Developing Hypotheses • A hypothesis is an educated guess about an association that is testable in a scientific investigation • Descriptive data provide information to develop hypotheses • Hypotheses tend to be broad initially and are then refined to have a narrower focus

  22. Example • Hypothesis: People who ate at the church picnic were more likely to become ill • Exposure is eating at the church picnic • Outcome is illness – this would need to be defined, for example, ill persons are those who have diarrhea and fever • Hypothesis: People who ate the egg salad at the church picnic were more likely to have laboratory-confirmed Salmonella • Exposure is eating egg salad at the church picnic • Outcome is laboratory confirmation of Salmonella

  23. TX Case Study Hypothesis and Study Design

  24. What do we know? • We know… • 75 cases reported by March 12 – all were students who lived on campus • All of cases sampled (n=7) reported eating at the main campus cafeteria • 6 of 7 at the deli bar • No illness among off-campus students, faculty, or community members

  25. What do we suspect? • We suspect the main cafeteria is the source of infection • We also suspect the deli bar, in particular, may be the outbreak source

  26. What can we “prove”? • Can we “prove” it? • Need to conduct an analytic study • Need a testable hypothesis

  27. What hypothesis will be tested? • Main cafeteria vs. other dining halls? • Within the main cafeteria: • Deli bar vs. grill? • Salad bar vs. hot entrée? • Food item vs. food handler at deli bar?

  28. Our Hypothesis A viral infection was spread by food(s) or beverage(s) served at the university’s main cafeteria between March 5 and 10.

  29. Source Population Town residents (39,000) Students (12,000) 2400 on campus 2000 meal plan

  30. Which Study Design?

  31. Types of Analytic Studies Two main categories: • Experimental • Observational • Experimental – exposure status is assigned • Observational – exposure status is not assigned

  32. Experimental Studies • Can involve individuals or communities • Assignment of exposure status can be random or non-random • The non-exposed group can be untreated (placebo) or given a standard treatment • Most common is a randomized clinical trial

  33. Experimental Study Examples • Randomized clinical trial to determine if giving magnesium sulfate to pregnant women in preterm labor decreases the risk of their babies developing cerebral palsy • Randomized community trial to determine if fluoridation of the public water supply decreases dental cavities

  34. Observational Studies Three main types: • Cross-sectional study • Cohort study • Case-control study

  35. Cross-Sectional Studies • Exposure and outcome status are determined at the same time • Examples include: • Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) - • National Health and Nutrition Surveys (NHANES) - • Also include most opinion and political polls

  36. Cohort Study

  37. Definition of a Cohort In Epidemiology, “Any designated group of individuals who are followed or traced over a period of time.” Last, JM. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995

  38. Cohort Studies Study Population Exposure is self selected Non-exposed Exposed Follow through time Disease No Disease Disease No Disease

  39. Cohort Studies:Prospective vs. Retrospective

  40. Cohort: Forward Directionality Exposure Outcome Cohort Timeline Ill? Not Ill? Exposed Research Timeline

  41. Cohort Study Steps in a Cohort Study: • Identify Cohort • Administer Questionnaire • Analyze Data

  42. Cohort Study Step 1 – Identify cohort • Entire student body (n=12,000) • On-campus students (n=2400) • On campus students with meal plan who mainly ate at cafeteria (n=2000) • Sick students (n=75) • Do not select cohort so that either everyone is exposed or everyone is diseased

  43. Cohort Study Step 2 – Administer questionnaire • Step 2a – Determine exposure status • Main cafeteria • Deli bar • Food item • Step 2b – Determine disease status • Importance of well-defined case definition

  44. Cohort Study Example Dartmouth University: 698 (13.8%) of 5060 students had conjunctivitis in spring 2002 • To identify risk factors... • web-based questionnaire set up • E-mail sent to 3682 undergraduates • No data entry-rapid analysis • 1832 (50%) responded An outbreak of conjunctivitis due to atypical Streptococcus pneumoniae. N Engl J Med. 2003;348 (12):1112-21.

  45. Cohort Study Step 3 – Analyze data

  46. Interpreting a Risk Ratio The risk ratio is the ratio of the risk of disease in exposed individuals to the risk of disease in unexposed individuals • RR=1.0 = no association between exposure and disease • RR>1.0 = positive association • RR<1.0 = negative association

  47. Interpreting a Risk Ratio Example: Outbreak of conjunctivitis at Dartmouth College • RR = 2.5 • Disease = Conjunctivitis • Exposure = Attended a fraternity / sorority party “Students who attended a fraternity or sorority party had 2.5 times the risk of having conjunctivitis compared to students who did not attend a fraternity or sorority party”

  48. Cohort Study Example • Recent norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships • Attempt to interview all passengers • Collect food history information MMWR: December 13, 2002 / 51(49);1112-1115

  49. Cohort Study Examples • Shigellosis among swimmers in a Georgia park • Used park registry to identify park visitors • Whirlpools and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus • Occurred on a college football team