PUB-540 Principles of Epidemiology Course Assignments & Discussions Study Guide

Table of Contents

PUB-540 Principles of Epidemiology Course Assignments & Discussions Study Guide

PUB-540 Principles of Epidemiology Course Description

This course introduces epidemiological principles and methods to study, quantify, and assess the distribution and determinants of disease among populations. Learners examine the influence of biological and social factors on population health, including epigenetics, infectious disease, and foodborne illnesses. Learners evaluate epidemiologic study designs and apply measures of association as methods for determining relationships. Prerequisite: PUB-520 or PHN-600.

Grand Canyon University PUB-540 Benchmark – Epidemiologic Profile Assignment

Description

An epidemiologic profile is a summary of a significant public health issue, or issues, in your community, county, state, or country. An epidemiological profile helps to coordinate activities and policies from various agencies and organizations to improve health.

Review the available data, reports, and documents for your locale. Assess how the methods of epidemiology (study designs, data collection, measures of association, etc.) are used to determine who needs what services, where the services are needed, and how those services should be delivered. Define your community as your city, metropolitan area, or county and write a 2,000-2,250 word epidemiological profile (word limit excludes references and title page). The profile can be a general profile that provides a landscape picture of several significant chronic and infectious diseases in your defined community, or it can be a specific profile that targets one health issue, such as diabetes, asthma, STDs, flu, heart disease, obesity, alcohol abuse, or other drug use. Include the following:

Executive Summary

Describe the purpose of the epidemiologic profile and the health issue(s) it addresses. Discuss its importance to the community and how it will be utilized.
Summarize the key findings from your review of available data, reports, and documents for the community.

Introduction

Describe the defined community and population using demographic and socio-economic information and data.
Briefly describe the history and cultural background of the community.
Explain any unique contextual information that pertains to the public health of the defined community.
Describe any key public health projects, grants, or existing epidemiology-related working groups or committees in the community/county.

Description of Available Data

Identify at least two different data sources relevant to your profile. Discuss data from these sources and their relation to the issue or community.

Discuss the methods used in the data collection process (data source and organization providing the data; how often the data are collected; data limitations including response rates, missing data, selection of participants, etc.). Potential data sources and databases might include the following depending on what is available for your community or county:

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data
Youth risk behavioral survey
Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program data
CDC Wonder (multiple data sources)
County health rankings data (multiple data sources)
Alcohol-related disease impact data
Demographic health survey data (international)
Global school-based student health survey (international)
Local evaluation reports from the department/ministry of health or other nonprofit organizations

Interpretation of Results Regarding Key Health Issue

Size and magnitude of the measures
Trends and comparisons
Economic costs

Discussion of Problems and Strategies

Discuss disparities, limitations, and gaps in the information available regarding the health issue(s).
Describe potential public health strategies to address these gaps.
Use graphs and tables where appropriate.

Conclusion

You are required to cite to at least five sources to complete this assignment. Sources should be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and public health content.

General Requirements

You are required to cite at least FOUR sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the discussion question criteria and public health content.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

For top-quality coursework writing help and assignment writing services, trust Reliable Papers. Our expert team delivers 100% original human-written work tailored to your needs. Contact us via phone, WhatsApp, or live chat for assistance today!

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competency:

MPH

2.1 Apply epidemiological methods to the breadth of settings and situations in public health practice.

MSN Public Health Nursing

6.2 Apply epidemiological methods to the breadth of settings and situations in public health practice.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. An abstract is not required.

While APA style is required, solid academic writing is expected as well, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

PLEASE make sure APA citation and permalink for articles are complete and correct.

PLEASE add the links/sites below to the reference list if you use any of these readings and make sure everything is in proper APA format.

https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/quick-guide-on-refe…

Read Chapters 17, 19, and 20 in Gordis Epidemiology.

URL:

https://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/elsevier/2019/gordis-epidemiology_6e.php

Read “Health Inequalities Among British Civil Servants: The Whitehall II Study,” by Marmot and Smith, from The Lancet (1991).

URL:

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hch&AN=9107080526&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Read “The Role of Epidemiology in Disaster Response Policy Development,” by Thorpe et al., from Science Direct (2015).

URL:

http://www.sciencedirect.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S1047279714003184?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb

Read “Prescription Drug Abuse: From Epidemiology to Public Policy,” by McHugh, Nielsen, and Weiss, from Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (2015).

URL:

http://www.sciencedirect.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0740547214001871?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&ccp=y

Read “The Role Epidemiology in Evidence-Based Policy Making: A Case Study of Tobacco Use in Youth,” by Aldrich et al., from Annals of Epidemiology (2015).

URL:

http://www.sciencedirect.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S1047279714001495?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb

Read “Epidemiology, Policy, and Racial/Ethnic Minority Health Disparities,” by Carter-Pokras et al., from Annals of Epidemiology (2012).

URL:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3724931/

Read “Epidemiology and Public Policies,” by Barata, from Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia (2013).

URL:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1415-790X2013000100003&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en

Read “Ethical Issues in Epidemiologic Research and Public Health Practice,” by Coughlin, from Emerging Themes Epidemiology (2006).

URL:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1594564/

Explore the “Viral Hepatitis Epidemiologic Profiles” map, located on the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) website, to assist with topic assignment.

URL:

https://www.astho.org/Viral-Hepatitis-Epi-Profiles/Map/

Use the “BRFSS Web Enabled Analysis Tool,” located on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website, to complete the topic assignment.

URL:

https://nccd.cdc.gov/weat/#/

Review the “Belmont Report,” by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979), located on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – Office for Human Research Protections website.

URL:

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html

Explore the resources on “Health Data Tools and Statistics,” located on the PHPartners website.

URL:

https://phpartners.org/health_stats.html

Explore “Surveillance, Epidemiology and the End Results Program,” from the National Cancer Institute.

URL:

https://seer.cancer.gov/

Explore the STEPwise Approach to Surveillance (STEPS) page of the World Health Organization (WHO) website.

URL:

http://www.who.int/chp/steps/en/

MUST 2000-2250 WORDS have at least 6 citations with the page numbers and 6 references in APA format. (The List of References should not be older than 2018 and should not be included in the word count.)

Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the Learning Resources.

It is important that you cover all the topics identified in the assignment. Covering the topic does not mean mentioning the topic BUT presenting an explanation from the context of ethics and the readings for this class

To get maximum points you need to follow the requirements listed for this assignments 1) look at the word/page limits 2) review and follow APA rules 3) create subheadings to identify the key sections you are presenting and 4) Free from typographical and sentence construction errors.

REMEMBER IN APA FORMAT JOURNAL TITLES AND VOLUME NUMBERS ARE ITALICIZED.

You can also read another study guide on nursing assignments for students from another post on PUB-550 Application and Interpretation of Public Health Data Course Assignments & Discussions.

PUB-540 Benchmark – Epidemiologic Profile Assignment Rubric

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
PUB-540	PUB-540-O500	Benchmark – Epidemiologic Profile Assignment	200.0

Criteria	Percentage	Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	Less than Satisfactory (74.00%)	Satisfactory (79.00%)	Good (87.00%)	Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Content	70.0%
Executive Summary	10.0%	The purpose of the epidemiological profile is not stated. A summary of key findings is not presented.	The purpose of the epidemiological profile and a summary of key findings are presented. The purpose, importance, or use of the epidemiological profile is unclear. The key findings are misrepresented or require more detail to establish support for the proposed profile.	The purpose, importance, and use of the epidemiological profile are generally described. The key findings are summarized. Overall, more information is required to fully present the epidemiological profile. There are some inaccuracies.	The purpose, importance, and use of the epidemiological profile are described. The key findings are discussed. Overall, the key findings offer adequate support for the epidemiological profile. Some detail is required for clarity. The epidemiological profile is relevant for the proposed community or population.	The purpose, importance, and use of the epidemiological profile are described in detail. The key findings are discussed and offer strong support for the epidemiological profile. The epidemiological profile is highly relevant for the proposed community or population. Compelling rationale is provided and is supported by factual findings.

Introduction	10.0%	A description of the public health community, its issues, and current services is not provided in the epidemiological profile.	An incomplete summary of the public health community, its issues, and current services is presented. One or more element of the assigned elements is omitted. Information presented is inaccurate or not relevant to the population or community.	A general description of the public health community, its issues, and current services is presented. Information presented contains some minor inaccuracies or is not fully relevant to the population or community. More information or evidence is needed to fully represent the population or community.	A description of the public health community, its issues, and current services is presented. Information presented is relevant to the population or community. Some detail is needed for clarity. The population or community is adequately represented.	A detailed description of the public health community, its issues, and current services is well presented. Information is thoroughly presented that provides insight into the population or community. Strong support is offered to factually support claims.

Description of Available Data (C2.1)(C6.2)	10.0%	No data sources are utilized.	Less than two data sources are utilized. The data sources are not entirely relevant to the population, community, or issue. The methods used in data collection are not discussed, or the discussion is incomplete. There are minor inaccuracies.	At least two data sources relevant to the population and community are utilized. It is unclear how the data from these sources directly supports the epidemiological profile or the particular issue facing the population or community. More detail is needed to establish a clear correlation. The methods used in data collection are summarized.	At least two data sources relevant to the population and community are utilized. Support for the epidemiological profile or the particular issue facing the population or community is adequately established. The methods used in data collection are described. Minor detail is needed for clarity.	At least two data sources relevant to the population and community are utilized. Direct support for the epidemiological profile or the particular issue facing the population or community is clearly established. The methods used in data collection are clearly described. The description demonstrates a good ability to utilize data sources and apply the information to practice.

Interpretation of Results of Key Health Issue	10.0%	Interpretation of results of key health issues is not presented. The interpretation is not consistent with the assignment guidelines.	An incomplete interpretation of key health issues is presented. The interpretation omits one of the elements outlined in the assignment guidelines. The interpretation omits significant implications of the findings; or, it is unclear how the interpreted findings correlate with the proposed issue facing the population or community. There are some inaccuracies.	A general interpretation of key health issues is presented as outlined in the assignment guidelines. The interpretation does not fully elaborate on the findings. A correlation between the proposed issue facing the population or community is generally established. More detail or information is required.	An interpretation of key health issues is presented as outlined in the assignment guidelines. The interpretation elaborates on the findings. A correlation between the proposed issue facing the population or community is established. Some detail or information is needed for clarity.	A factual interpretation of key health issues is presented as outlined in the assignment guidelines. The interpretation provides an in-depth explanation of the findings. A strong correlation between the proposed issue facing the population or community is established. An aptitude for interpreting data is demonstrated.

Discussion (disparities, limitations, or gaps; potential public health strategies)	15.0%	A discussion of problems and strategies is omitted.	An incomplete discussion of problems and strategies is presented; one category has been omitted, or both categories lack sufficient information or support. The discussion contains inaccuracies.	A general discussion of problems and strategies is presented. The discussion of problems provides superficial assessment; not all of the key disparities, limitations, and gaps in information related to the health issue are presented. Potential strategies to address the problems are summarized. More information and detail is required.	A discussion of problems and strategies is presented. The discussion of problems provides an assessment of the most significant disparities, limitations, and gaps in information related to the health issue. Potential strategies to address the problems are described. Some minor detail is required for clarity.	A comprehensive discussion of problems and strategies is logically presented. The discussion of problems provides an in-depth assessment of the major and minor disparities, limitations, and gaps in information related to the health issue. Realistic strategies are proposed in detail to address the problems. The discussion is well-supported.

Display of Visual Data	5.0%	Tables and graphs are not utilized.	Tables and graphs were utilized inappropriately. Tables and graphs report information inconsistent with findings presented in the discussion.	Tables and graphs are minimally utilized. Tables and graphs contain some errors, or have some inconsistencies with the findings presented in the discussion.	Tables and graphs are utilized. The tables and graphs reflect the findings presented in the discussion.	Tables and graphs are strategically utilized. The tables and graphs clearly reflect the information presented in the discussion.

Conclusion	5.0%	A conclusion is not presented.	An incomplete conclusion is presented.	The conclusion provides a concise summary of the elements presented in the epidemiological profile.	The conclusion summarizes the elements presented in the epidemiological profile. The importance of the thesis is reiterated.	The conclusion summarizes elements of the epidemiological profile, synthesizing key points and ideas. The conclusion stresses the importance of the thesis presented in the epidemiological profile. The conclusion is compelling and encourages the reader to reflect on the proposed profile.

Required Sources	5.0%	Sources are not included.	Number of required sources is only partially met.	Number of required sources is met, but sources are outdated or inappropriate.	Number of required sources is met. Sources are current, but not all sources are appropriate for the assignment criteria and public health content.	Number of required resources is met. Sources are current, and appropriate for the assignment criteria and public health content.


Organization and Effectiveness	20.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose	7.0%	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.	Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Argument Logic and Construction	8.0%	Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.	Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	5.0%	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.


Format	10.0%
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	5.0%	Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	5.0%	Sources are not documented.	Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

Total Weightage	100%

Grand Canyon University PUB-540 Historical Review of Epidemiology Assignment

Description

Key individuals and historical events have helped shape the field of epidemiology. Research the following individuals and their roles in shaping contemporary epidemiology:

John Graunt

James Lind

Edward Jenner

Ignaz Semmelweis

John Snow

Choose three of the individuals from your research. In a 1,000-1,250 word paper, describe the epidemiological advancements that were influenced by these individuals. Include the following:

Describe the disease and the event. Using descriptive epidemiology, discuss how common the disease was at the time, who was infected, when it occurred (time of year or season), and the mode of transmission. If the individual is not associated with a specific disease, discuss a significant disease happening during that period.

Discuss how the individuals influenced or advanced epidemiological methods and the process they used to describe and control disease. Discuss how their contributions helped to inform the definition of epidemiology. Consider whether they used qualitative, quantitative, or both types of data collection methods, and the approach they used to test their hypotheses.

Discuss how similar epidemiological methods have been used to understand one current public health issue (not one for each individual). Discuss the key research studies used to understand the risk factors associated with the problem or disease. Two potential examples include lung cancer (Doll and Hill, 1950) or cardiovascular disease and the Framingham Heart Study (Drawber, Meadors, & Moore, 1950; Kannel, 2000).

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

PLEASE make sure APA citation and permalink for articles are complete and correct.

PLEASE add the links/sites below to the reference list if you use any of these readings and make sure everything is in proper APA format.

https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/quick-guide-on-refe…

Read Chapters 1, 2, and 6 in Gordis Epidemiology.

URL:

https://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/elsevier/2019/gordis-epidemiology_6e.php

Read “Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung,” by Doll and Hill, from British Medical Journal (1950).

URL:

https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.lopes.idm.oclc.org/pmc/articles/PMC2038856/pdf/brmedj03566-0003.pdf

Read “The Training of Epidemiologists and Diversity in Epidemiology: Findings from the 2006 Congress of Epidemiology Survey,” by Carter-Pokras et al., from Annals of Epidemiology (2009).

URL:

http://www.sciencedirect.com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S104727970900060X

Watch “Epidemiology the Backbone of Public Health,” by Greg Martin (2017), located on the YouTube website.

URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5XRh47T420

Read “The Framingham Study: ITS 50-Year Legacy and Future Promise,” by Kannel, from Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis (2000).

URL:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jat1994/6/2/6_2_60/_pdf

Read “Epidemiological Background and Design: The Framingham Study,” located on the Framingham Heart Study website.

URL:

https://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/fhs-about/history/epidemiological-background/

Read “Epidemiological Approaches to Heart Disease: The Framingham Study,” by Dawber, Meadors, and Moore, from American Journal of Public Health (1951).

URL:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525365/pdf/amjphnation00421-0020.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm10VqiSJ6tLAYY0TMfm15VR8M93MA&nossl=1&oi=scholarr

View “Global Disease Detectives,” by the Center for Global Health (2013), located on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.

URL:

https://www.cdc.gov/cdctv/dataandstatistics/disease-detectives.html

Read “Section 2: Historical Evolution of Epidemiology,” from Lesson 1 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) self-study course, Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health Practice (2012), located on the CDC website.

URL:

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section2.html

Explore the CDC Current Outbreak List page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.

URL:

https://www.cdc.gov/outbreaks/index.html

Explore the Epidemic Intelligence Service page of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.

URL:

https://www.cdc.gov/eis/index.html

Explore the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), located on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.

URL:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html

PUB-540 Historical Review of Epidemiology Rubric

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
PUB-540	PUB-540-O500	Historical Review of Epidemiology	100.0

Criteria	Percentage	Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	Less than Satisfactory (74.00%)	Satisfactory (79.00%)	Good (87.00%)	Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Criteria	100.0%
Key Individuals and Historical Events	20.0%	Three individuals shaping the field of epidemiology have not been presented. The individuals chosen do not meet the assignment criteria.	An incomplete summary of three individuals is presented. The individuals chosen meet the assignment criteria, but the roles of the individuals or events are inaccurately represented.	Three key individuals shaping the field of epidemiology are presented. The roles of the individuals and events are presented, but there are minor inaccuracies.	A narrative describing the key individuals shaping the field of epidemiology is presented. The roles of the individuals and events are accurate. More detail is required to fully represent the individuals or events.	A well-organized narrative describing the key individuals shaping the field of epidemiology is presented. The roles of the individuals and events are accurately and discussed in detailed.

Disease and Event	15.0%	The disease and event are not described for the three individuals.	The disease and event are generally presented for all three individuals. The descriptions contain inaccuracies regarding the timeframe, who was infected and when, and the mode of transmission. Descriptive epidemiology is not used, or is used out of context.	The disease and event are generally summarized for all three individuals. The descriptions are accurate, but require significantly more detail regarding the timeframe, who was infected and when, and the mode of transmission. Some descriptive epidemiology is used.	The disease and event are accurately described for all three individuals. Some detail regarding the timeframe, who was infected and when, and the mode of transmission is needed to provide clarity. Descriptive epidemiology is generally used.	The disease and event are described accurately and clearly for all three individuals. Strong detail regarding the timeframe, who was infected and when, and the mode of transmission is presented. The description demonstrates a strong understanding of descriptive epidemiology.

How Individuals/Events Influenced or Advanced Methods of the Time	20.0%	A discussion of how events or the three individuals influenced or advanced epidemiological methods of the time is not presented.	A summary of how events or the three individuals influenced or advanced epidemiological methods of the time is presented. The summary contains inaccuracies. Significant detail or evidence is needed to support discussion.	A general discussion of how events or the three individuals influenced or advanced epidemiological methods of the time is presented. The discussion requires some detail or evidence to fully support discussion.	A discussion of how events or the three individuals influenced or advanced epidemiological methods of the time is presented. Evidence is used to support discussion. Some detail is needed for clarity.	A detailed discussion of how events or the three individuals influenced or advanced epidemiological methods of the time is presented. Strong evidence is used to support discussion. The discussion demonstrates an understanding of the epidemiological advancements.

How Advancements Influenced Understanding of Current Public Health Efforts	15.0%	A discussion on the epidemiological advancements of methods leading to the understanding of current public health issues is not presented.	A summary on the epidemiological advancements leading to the understanding of current public health issues is presented. The summary contains inaccuracies. No logical correlation between epidemiological historical advancements and the understanding of current public health issues is established.	A discussion on the epidemiological advancements leading to the understanding of current public health issues is generally presented. A general correlation between epidemiological historical advancements and the understanding of current public health issues is established. There are some inaccuracies; more evidence is needed to support discussion.	A discussion on the epidemiological advancements leading to the understanding of current public health issues is accurately presented. A correlation between epidemiological historical advancements and the understanding of current public health issues is established. The discussion requires some detail for clarity.	A discussion on the epidemiological advancements leading to the understanding of current public health issues is accurately presented. A correlation between epidemiological historical advancements and the understanding of current public health issues is established.

Thesis Development and Purpose	7.0%	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.	Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Argument Logic and Construction	8.0%	Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.	Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	5.0%	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	5.0%	Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	5.0%	Sources are not documented.	Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

Total Weightage	100%

PUB-540 Oswego Outbreak Case Study Assignment

Topic 2: Disease Surveillance and Measurement

Objectives:

Evaluate the effectiveness of disease surveillance in public health.
Apply measurement tools to assess the impact of disease, its burden, and associated risk factors.
Discuss the importance of validity and reliability.
Evaluate the steps for investigating the occurrence of disease.

Oswego Outbreak Case Study Description

Read the “Oswego Outbreak Investigation,” located in the Topic Materials.

Part 1

Complete the following:

Using the line listing in the Excel “Oswego Line Listing Workbook,” calculate the attack rate ratios for each food item using the table in the Excel “Oswego Attack Rate Table.” Create a separate 2×2 table for the food item you think is responsible for the outbreak and interpret the attack rate ratio for this food item. Refer to the “Creating a 2×2 Contingency Table” resource for guidance.

Using the line listing in Excel “Oswego Line Listing Workbook,” construct an epidemic curve by the time of onset of illness. What does this curve tell you regarding the average incubation period, source, and transmission?

Using the incubation range and clinical symptoms, identify potential infectious agents that could be responsible for the outbreak (refer to the Topic Material, “Compendium of Acute Foodborne and Waterborne Diseases”). Discuss your rationale.

Part 2

In a 500-750 word paper, evaluate the situation and present your findings. Including the following:

Does this case meet the definition of an “outbreak?” Why or why not?
Identify the steps required to investigate an outbreak. How did these steps help in investigating the Oswego event? Include the relevant information needed for each step to be successful.
Discuss the possible routes of transmission for the expected agent.

Based on this information, what control measures would you recommend? State whether they are primary, secondary, or tertiary prevention strategies.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

PLEASE make sure APA citation and permalink for articles are complete and correct.
PLEASE add the links/sites below to the reference list if you use any of these readings and make sure everything is in proper APA format.
https://apastyle.apa.org/learn/quick-guide-on-refe…
Read Chapters 3-5 and 18 in Gordis Epidemiology.

URL:

https://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/elsevier/2019/gordis-epidemiology_6e.php

Use the “Compendium of Acute Foodborne and Waterborne Diseases,” located on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website, to assist in completing the Oswego Outbreak Case History assignment.

URL:

https://www.cdc.gov/eis/casestudies/xoswego.401.303.compendium.pdf

View “How to Create an Epidemic Curve,” by Martin (2016), located on the YouTube website.

URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn84ezAzV4k

View “Know How to Interpret an Epidemic Curve?” by Martin (2017), located on the YouTube website.

URL:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SM4PN7Yg1s

Read “Two by Two Tables,” by Sullivan, Dean, and Pezzullo, from OpenEpi: Open Source Epidemiologic Statistics for Public Health (2013), located on the OpenEpi website.

URL:

http://www.openepi.com/TwobyTwo/TwobyTwo.htm

Read “Goodness of Measurement: Reliability and Validity,” by Bajpai and Bajpai, from International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health (2014).

URL:

https://www.ejmanager.com/mnstemps/67/67-1380953319.pdf

Read “CDC 24-7 Fact of the Week,” located on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.

URL:

https://www.cdc.gov/about/facts/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fabout%2Ffacts%2Fcdcfastfacts%2Fsurveillance.html

General Requirements

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

Topic 2 DQ 1

Disease surveillance is a necessary public health role. Passive surveillance relies on individuals and local authorities “pushing” information to national agencies who then compile, analyze, and disseminate the information. Unfortunately, significant gaps occur in reporting.

Review your textbook, and the CDC’s National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS). Discuss the strengths of the current surveillance systems, the gaps you identified, and why these gaps occur. Discuss the global challenges of coordinating surveillance between multiple countries and provide an example highlighting the challenges. What could other governments and agencies, such as the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, do to strengthen global disease surveillance systems?

Topic 2 DQ 2

Explain the importance of validity and reliability in diagnostic testing or research. Describe how validity relates to sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic testing. Identify a health screen specific to a diagnostic test that is currently being debated regarding its use, recommended ages, or frequency, and discuss how validity and reliability play into this debate. What other factors should you consider when you assess the recommendations for a diagnostic test or screen?

PUB-540 Oswego Outbreak Case Study Assignment Rubric

Course Code	Class Code	Assignment Title	Total Points
PUB-540	PUB-540-O500	Oswego Outbreak Case Study	120.0

Criteria	Percentage	Unsatisfactory (0.00%)	Less than Satisfactory (74.00%)	Satisfactory (79.00%)	Good (87.00%)	Excellent (100.00%)	Comments	Points Earned
Criteria	100.0%
Calculation of Attack Rate Ratios for Food Items	10.0%	Calculation of attack rate ratios for food items is not performed; or, the calculation is not performed or presented according to assignment guidelines.	N/A	Calculation of attack rate ratios for food items is performed accurately and according to assignment guidelines. However, the data used are inaccurate, yielding an inaccurate attack rate ratio, or the wrong formula is utilized to calculate the ratio.	N/A	Calculation of attack rate ratios for food items is presented according to assignment guidelines and the results are accurate.

Construction of Epidemic Curve by Time of Onset of Illness	10.0%	Epidemic curve by time of onset of illness is not constructed; or, it is not presented according to assignment guidelines.	N/A	Epidemic curve by time of onset of illness is presented according to assignment guidelines. However, the data used, or the manner in which the curve is displayed is inaccurate.	N/A	Epidemic curve by time of onset of illness is constructed and accurate.

Identify Incubation Range Identification of Infectious Agent	10.0%	Identification of an agent is not discussed.	Identification of an agent is present but does not include any rationale.	Identification of an agent is present including some rationale, but the agent or discussion is incorrect.	Identification of more than one possible agents is present, and rationale is appropriate. Use of the epidemic curve and incubation range are evident. Discussion is sufficient and appropriate based on the agents identified.	Identification of several agents is present and supported by strong rationale. Use of the epidemic curve and incubation range are evident. Discussion is comprehensive and correctly explains the rationale for selecting the appropriate agent.

Evaluation of Situation (Analysis of outbreak, steps to investigate outbreak	15.0%	Analysis of the case history as an outbreak and the steps to investigating an outbreak is not presented; or, the analysis and presentation are incomplete.	Analysis of the case history as an outbreak and the steps to investigating an outbreak is summarized. The summary contains significant inaccuracies.	Analysis of case history as an outbreak and the steps to investigating an outbreak is discussed. The discussion presents a general evaluation the situation. There are minor inaccuracies. More evidence is needed for support.	Analysis of the case history as an outbreak and the steps to investigating an outbreak is discussed. The discussion presents an evaluation of the situation. Some evidence or detail is needed for clarity.	Analysis of the case history as an outbreak and the steps to investigating the outbreak is thoroughly discussed. The discussion presents a detailed evaluation of the situation. Sufficient evidence and detail are provided to support the evaluation of the situation.

Possible Routes of Transmission	10.0%	Possible routes of transmission of the expected agent are not presented.	Possible routes of transmission of the expected agent are summarized. The summary contains inaccuracies or is incomplete.	Possible routes of transmission of the expected agent are generally presented. There are minor inaccuracies. More evidence is needed for support.	Possible routes of transmission of the expected agent are presented. Some evidence or detail is needed for clarity.	Possible routes of transmission of the expected agent are clearly presented. Sufficient evidence and detail is provided to support claims.

Recommendations (Control measures recommended; primary, secondary or tertiary prevention strategies)	15.0%	Control measures and prevention strategies are not recommended.	An incomplete recommendation for control measures and prevention strategies is presented.	A general recommendation for control measures and prevention strategies is presented. The recommendation contains inaccuracies or requires more detail and evidence to support claims.	A recommendation for control measures and prevention strategies is presented. The recommendation requires some detail for clarity. Evidence provided adequately supports claims.	A detailed recommendation for control measures and prevention strategies is presented. The recommendation provides strong evidence that supports claims. The recommendations demonstrate insight into addressing critical thinking.

Thesis Development and Purpose	7.0%	Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.	Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.	Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Argument Logic and Construction	8.0%	Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.	Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.	Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	5.0%	Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.	Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.	Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.	Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	5.0%	Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.	Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	All format elements are correct.

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	5.0%	Sources are not documented.	Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

Total Weightage	100%

PUB-540 Oswego Outbreak Case Study Assignment: Creating a 2×2 Contingency Table

Creating a 2×2 contingency table is very useful in calculating a variety of public health measurements, including sensitivity and specificity, negative and positive predictive value, risk ratios, attack rate ratios, and odds ratios.

A 2×2 table is actually a 3×3 table when you include the rows and columns for the totals. If you are setting up a table to measure the sensitivity and specificity of a test or its negative and positive predictive values, you should put the test results on the y-axis (rows) and the actual presence of disease on the x-axis (columns).

	Disease	No Disease	Total
Test (+)	(a)	(b)	a + b
Test (-)	(c)	(d)	c + d
Total	a + c	b + d	a + b + c + d

The highlighted section is where you will enter the data for each corresponding cell. You can set up the table switching the rows and columns but you will generally see them set up in this format with test results on the y-axis and disease on the x-axis.

Setting up a table to measure the association of a risk factor or exposure is similar, with the outcome or disease on the x-axis and the presence of the risk factor or exposure on the y-axis.

	Disease	No Disease	Total
Exposure (+)	(a)	(b)	a + b
Exposure (-)	(c)	(d)	c + d
Total	a + c	b + d	a + b + c + d

Note: You can set up the table differently but you will need to be cognizant of which numbers you are putting in your numerator and denominator for the measure you are calculating. For example:

	Exposure (+)	Exposure (-)	Total
No Disease	(b)	(d)	b + d
Disease	(a)	(c)	a + c
Total	a + b	b + c	a + b + c + d


	Number of persons who ate specified food				Number of persons who did not eat specified food				Attack Rate Ratio
	Ill	Not Ill	Total	Percent Ill (Attack Rate)	Ill	Not Ill	Total	Percent Ill (Attack Rate)	Attack Rate Ratio
Baked ham
Spinach
Mashed potatoes
cabbage
Jello
Rolls
Brown bread
Milk
Coffee
Water
Cakes
Van ice cream
Cho ice cream
Fruit salad

AGE

SEX

Time of Meal

Ill

Date of Onset

Time of Onset

Baked ham

Spinach

Mashed potatoes

Cabbage

Jello

Rolls

Brown bread

Milk

Coffee

Water

Cakes

Van ice cream

Cho ice cream

Fruit salad

unk

20:00

19-Apr

0:30

18:30

19-Apr

0:30

18:30

19-Apr

0:30

unk

19:30

18-Apr

22:30

19:30

18-Apr

22:30

19:30

19-Apr

2:00

22:00

19-Apr

1:00