SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 80
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 1
Epidemiologic measures: Incidence &
prevalence
Principles of Epidemiology for Public Health (EPID600)
Victor J. Schoenbach, PhD home page
Department of Epidemiology
Gillings School of Global Public Health
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
www.unc.edu/epid600/
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 2
Quotations that demonstrate the value of
humility about predicting the future
(authenticity not established)
Courtesy of Suzanne Cloutier, 11/17/1998
Famous last words
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 3
β€œLouis Pasteur's theory of germs is
ridiculous fiction.”
- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 4
β€œThis `telephoneΒ΄ has too many
shortcomings to be seriously
considered as a means of communication.
The device is inherently of no value to us.”
- Western Union internal memo, 1876
(Source: 2000 National Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the
Year Awards special insert in USA Today, 2/11/2000, p9B)
FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 5
β€œEverything that can be invented
has been invented.”
- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Patent Office,1899
FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
9/11/2005 Incidence and prevalence 6
β€œThe wireless music box has no imaginable
commercial value. Who would pay for a
message sent to nobody in particular?”
- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his
urgings for investment in radio in the 1920s.
FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 7
β€œMy thesis in this lecture is that
macroeconomics . . . has succeeded: Its
central problem of depression-prevention
has been solved, for all practical purposes,
and has in fact been solved for many
decades.”
- Robert E. Lucas, Jr., American Economics Association
Presidential Address, January 10, 2003
http://home.uchicago.edu/~sogrodow/homepage/paddress03.pdf
FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 8
The population perspective requires
measuring disease in populations
β€’ Science is built on classification and
measurement.
β€’ Reality is infinitely detailed, infinitely complex.
β€’ Classification and measurement seek to capture
the essential attributes.
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 9
Deriving meaning from stimuli
Vase or faces?
Which line is
longer?
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 10
Measurement β€œcaptures” the phenomenon
Classification and measurement are based on:
1. Objective of the classification
2. Conceptual model (understanding of the
phenomenon)
3. Availability of data (technology)
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 11
O
O
O
O
O
O
O








An example population (N=200)
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 12








O
How can we quantify disease in populations?
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 13








O
O
How can we quantify disease in populations?
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 14








O
O
O
How can we quantify disease in populations?
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 15








O
O
O
OO
How can we quantify disease in populations?
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 16








O
O
O
OO
O
How can we quantify disease in populations?
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 17








O
O
O
OO
O
How can we quantify the frequency?
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 18








O
O
O
OO
O
Rate of occurrence of new cases
per unit time (e.g., 1 per month)
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 19








O
1 new case in month 1
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 20








O
O
1 new case in month 2
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 21








O
O
O
1 new case in month 3, for a total of 3 cases
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 22








O
O
O
OO
2 new cases in month 4
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 23








O
O
O
OO
O
1 new case in month 5 (total=6)
5/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 24








O
O
O
OO
O
O
1 case in month 6
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 25








O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
1 new case in month 7
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 26








O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
OO
2 new cases in month 8
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 27








O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
OO
O
O
2 cases in month 9
1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 28








O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
OO
O
O
Rate of occurrence of new cases during 9 months:
1 case/month to 2 cases/month
1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 29
Number of cases depends on length of interval
Divide by length of time interval, so can
compare across intervals
Number of new cases
Rate of new cases = –––––––––––––––––
Time interval
= 12 cases / 9 months = 1.33 cases /
month
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 30
Number of cases depends on population size
So, divide by population and time:
Number of new cases
Incidence rate = ––––––––––––––––––
Population-time
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 31
How to estimate population-time?
Population at risk: the people eligible to
become a case and to be counted as one.
In this example that population declines as
each case occurs.
So estimate population-time as . . .
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 32
Population-time =
Method 1: Add up the time that each person is
at risk
Method 2: Add up the population at risk during
each time segment
Method 3: Multiply the average size of the
population at risk by the length of the time
interval
1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 33
Estimating population-time - method 2
Total population-time over 9 months =
200 + 199 + 198 + 197 + 195 + 194 + 193 +
192 + 190
= 1,758 person-months
= 146.5 person-years
However, cases are not at risk for a full
month.
1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 34
Estimating population-time - method 2
- better
Total population-time over 9 months =
199.5 + 198.5 + 197.5 + 196 + 194.5 + 193.5
+ 192.5 + 191 + 189
= 1,752 person-months
= 146 person-years
assuming that cases develop, on average, in
the middle of the month
1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 35
Estimating population-time - method 3
Average size of the population at risk during the
9 months = 195.3 (1,758 / 9) or approximately:
(200 + 188) /2 = 194
Population-time = 195.3 x 9 months or
(approximately) 194 x 9 months
= 1,746 person-months
= 145.5 person-years
1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 36
Equivalent to - method 3
Take initial size of population at risk and reduce
it for time the people were not at risk due to
acquiring the disease:
200 - 12/2 = 194 (approximately)
Population-time = 194 x 9 months
= 1,746 person-months
= 145.5 person-years
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 37
Incidence rate (β€œincidence density”)
Number of new cases
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Avg population at risk Γ— Time interval
Number of new cases
= ––––––––––––––––––––
Population-time
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 38
O
O
O
O
O
O
O








What proportion of the population
at risk are affected after 5 months?
1/30/2004 Incidence and prevalence 39








O
What proportion of the population
is affected after 1 month? (1/200)
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 40








O
O
What proportion of the population
is affected after 2 months? (2/200)
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 41








O
O
O
What proportion of the population
is affected after 3 months? (3/200)
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 42








O
O
O
OO
What proportion of the population is
affected after 4 months? (5/200)
1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 43








O
O
O
OO
O
6 / 200 = 0.03 = 3% = 30 / 1,000
in 5 months
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 44
Incidence proportion (β€œcumulative incidence”)
Number of new cases
5-month CI = –––––––––––––––––––
Population at risk
Incidence proportion estimates risk.
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 45
Incidence rate versus incidence proportion
β€’ Incidence rate measures how rapidly cases are
occurring.
β€’ Incidence proportion is cumulative.
β€’ When care only about the β€œbottom line” (i.e.,
what has happened by the end of given period):
incidence proportion (CI).
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 46
Incidence rate versus incidence proportion
β€’ If risk period is long (e.g., cancer), we usually
observe only a portion.
β€’ To compare results from studies with different
length of follow-up, use incidence rate (IR)
β€’ If risk period is short, we usually observe all of it
and can use incidence proportion.
Incidence rate versus incidence proportion
(rare disease, IR = 0.005 / month)
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 47
(see spreadsheet at epidemiolog.net/studymat/)
Incidence rate versus incidence proportion
(common disease, IR = 0.1 / month)
2/7/2012 Incidence and prevalence 48
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 49
Case fatality rate
β€œCase fatality rate” (but it’s really a proportion)
= proportion of cases who die
(in a specified time interval)
β€’ Like a β€œcumulative incidence of death” in cases
[ β€œincidence rate of death” in cases =
β€œtermination rate” = 1/(average survival time)]
1/30/2007 Incidence and prevalence 50
Mortality rate
Number of deaths
Mortality rate = ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Population at risk Γ— Time interval
Number of deaths
Annual mortality rate = ––––––––––––––––––––––
Mid-year population (x 1 yr)
6/6/2002 Incidence and prevalence 51
Mortality rate (more notes)
Number of deaths
Mortality rate = ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Population at risk Γ— Time interval
Number of deaths
Annual mortality rate = ––––––––––––––––––
Mid-year population
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 52
Mortality rates versus incidence rates
β€’ Mortality data are more generally available
β€’ Fatality reflects many factors, so mortality
rates may not be a good surrogate of incidence
rates
β€’ Death certificate cause of death not always
accurate or useful
1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 53
Prevalence – another important proportion
Number of existing (and new) cases
Prevalence =
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Population at risk
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 54








O
O
O
OO
O
O
1 new case, 1 death
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 55








O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
1 new case, 1 new death
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 56








O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
OO
2 new cases, no deaths
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 57








O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
OO
O
O
2 new cases, 1 new death
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 58








O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
OO
O
O
What is the prevalence? (9 / 197)
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 59
Fine points . . .
β€’Who is β€œat risk”?
β€’ Endometrial cancer? Prostate cancer?
Breast cancer?
β€’ Only women who have not had a
hysterectomy?
β€œCould” develop the condition + β€œwould” be
counted.
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 60
More fine points
β€’ Age?
β€’ Immunity?
β€’ Genetically susceptible?
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 61
More fine points . . .
β€’ How do we measure time?
β€’ Are 10 people followed for 10 years the
same as 100 people followed for 1 year?
β€’ Aging of the cohort? Secular changes?
9/22/2005, 9/8/2008 Incidence and prevalence 62
Fine points . . .
β€’ Importance of stating units and scaling
unless they are clear from the context
– e.g., 120 per 100,000 person-years =
10 per 100,000 person-months
– Hazards from lack of clarity
1/30/2004 Incidence and prevalence 63
β€œYou can never, never take anything for granted.”
Noel Hinners, vice president for flight systems at
Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Denver, concerning
the loss of the Martian Climate Orbiter due to the
Lockheed Martin spacecraft team’s having reported
measurements in English units whiles the orbiter’s
navigation team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) in Pasadena, California assumed the
measurements were in metric units.
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 64
Relation of incidence and prevalence
β€’ Prevalence depends on incidence
β€’ Higher incidence leads to higher prevalence if
duration of cases does not change.
β€’ Limitation of the bathtub analogy – flow rate needs to
be expressed relative to the size of the source
β€’ Introducing a new analogy . . .
9/23/2002 Incidence and prevalence 65
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 66
Population
at risk
Existing
cases
Deaths,
cures, etc.
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 67
Incidence, prevalence, duration of hospitalization
Remote community of 101,000 people
One hospital, patient census = 1,000
Steady state
500 admissions per week
Prevalence = 1,000/101,000 = 9.9/1,000
IR = 500/100,000 = 5/1,000/week
Duration Prevalence / IR = 2 weeks
1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 68
Relation of incidence and prevalence
Under somewhat special conditions,
Prevalence odds = incidence Γ— duration
Prevalence incidence Γ— duration
(see spreadsheet at www.epidemiolog.net/studymat/)
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 69
Standardization
β€’ When objective is comparability, need to
adjust for different distributions of other
determinants
β€’ Strategy:
β€’ Analyze within each subgroup (stratum)
β€’ Take a weighted average across strata
β€’ Use same weights for all populations
(See the Evolving Text on www.epidemiolog.net)
8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 70
Familiar example of weighted averages
β€’ Liters of petrol per kilometer - differs for Interstate
(0.050 LpK) and non-Interstate (0.100 LpK) driving.
β€’ To compare different cars, can:
β€’ Compare them for each type of driving separately
(stratified analysis)
β€’ Average for each car, using one set of weights
(e.g., 80% Interstate, 20% non-Interstate)
β€’ E.g. = 0.80 x 0.050 LpK + 0.20 x 0.100 LpK = 0.060 LpK
8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 71
Comparing a Suburu and a Mazda
Juan drives a Suburu 800 km on Interstate highways
and 200 km on other roads. His car uses 0.050 LpK
on Interstates and 0.100 LpK on other roads, for a
total of 60 liters of petrol, an average of 0.060 LpK
(60 L / 1000 km). His overall LpK can be expressed
as a weighted average:
(800/1000) x 0.050 LpK + (200/1000) x 0.100 LpK
= 0.80 x 0.050 LpK + 0.20 x 0.100 LpK = 0.060 LpK
8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 72
Comparing a Suburu and a Mazda
Shizu drives her Mazda on a different route, with
only 200 km on Interstate and 800 km on other
roads. She uses 0.045 lpk on Interstate highways
and 0.080 LpK on non-Interstate. She uses a total
of 73 liters, or 0.073 LpK. Her overall LpK can be
expressed as a weighted average:
(200/1,000) x 0.045 LpK + (800/1,000) x 0.080 LpK
= 0.20 x 0.045 LpK + 0.80 x 0.080 LpK =0.073 LpK
8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 73
How can we compare their fuel efficiency?
Juan Shizu
Km LpK Km LpK
Interstate 800 0.050 200 0.045
Other 200 0.100 800 0.080
Total 1,000 0.060 1,000 0.073
8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 74
Total fuel efficiency is not comparable
because weights are different
Juan Shizu
% LpK % LpK
Interstate 80 0.050 20 0.045
Other 20 0.100 80 0.080
Total 100% 0.060 100% 0.073
8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 75
By adopting a β€œstandard” set of weights we
can compare fairly
Juan Shizu
% LpK % LpK
Interstate 60 0.050 60 0.045
Other 40 0.100 40 0.080
Total 100 0.060 100 0.073
Standardized 0.070 0.059
8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 76
Comparing a Suburu and a Mazda
β€’Juan’s Suburu:
= 0.60 x 0.050 LpK + 0.40 x 0.100 LpK =0.070 LpK
β€’Shizu’s Mazda:
= 0.60 x 0.045 LpK + 0.40 x 0.080 LpK =0.059 LpK
The choice of weights may often affect the results of
the comparison.
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 77
β€œI'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's
falling on his face and not Gary Cooper.”
- Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the
leading role in β€œGone With The Wind”
FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 78
β€œA cookie store is a bad idea.
Besides, the market research reports
say America likes crispy cookies,
not soft and chewy cookies like you
make.”
- Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting
Mrs. Fields' Cookies.
FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 79
β€œComputers in the future may weigh
no more than 1.5 tons.”
- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the
relentless march of science, 1949
FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 80
β€œI think there is a world market
for maybe five computers.”
-Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future

More Related Content

What's hot

Measurement of disease frequency
Measurement of disease frequencyMeasurement of disease frequency
Measurement of disease frequencyEhealthMoHS
Β 
Epidemiological Studies
Epidemiological StudiesEpidemiological Studies
Epidemiological StudiesAkhilesh Bhargava
Β 
Epidemiological study designs
Epidemiological study designs Epidemiological study designs
Epidemiological study designs Tauseef Jawaid
Β 
Measures of Disease, Morbidity& mortality
Measures of Disease, Morbidity& mortalityMeasures of Disease, Morbidity& mortality
Measures of Disease, Morbidity& mortalityADIL .
Β 
Study designs, Epidemiological study design, Types of studies
Study designs, Epidemiological study design, Types of studiesStudy designs, Epidemiological study design, Types of studies
Study designs, Epidemiological study design, Types of studiesDr Lipilekha Patnaik
Β 
Standardization of rates by Dr. Basil Tumaini
Standardization of rates by Dr. Basil TumainiStandardization of rates by Dr. Basil Tumaini
Standardization of rates by Dr. Basil TumainiBasil Tumaini
Β 
Investigation of epidemic presentation
Investigation of epidemic presentationInvestigation of epidemic presentation
Investigation of epidemic presentationMoustapha Ramadan
Β 
Descriptive and Analytical Epidemiology
Descriptive and Analytical Epidemiology Descriptive and Analytical Epidemiology
Descriptive and Analytical Epidemiology coolboy101pk
Β 
Cohort study
Cohort studyCohort study
Cohort studyDrSridevi NH
Β 
Epidemiology lecture 1 introduction
Epidemiology lecture 1 introductionEpidemiology lecture 1 introduction
Epidemiology lecture 1 introductionINAAMUL HAQ
Β 
Life table
Life tableLife table
Life tablecpdarshini
Β 
Measuring Disease Frequency
Measuring Disease FrequencyMeasuring Disease Frequency
Measuring Disease FrequencyAkhilesh Bhargava
Β 
Burden of Disease Analysis
Burden of Disease AnalysisBurden of Disease Analysis
Burden of Disease Analysissourav goswami
Β 
Introduction to epidemiology
Introduction to epidemiologyIntroduction to epidemiology
Introduction to epidemiologyPradhuman Yadav
Β 
Measurement of epidemiology.pptx
Measurement of epidemiology.pptxMeasurement of epidemiology.pptx
Measurement of epidemiology.pptxradha maharjan
Β 
Techniques in clinical epidemiology
Techniques in clinical epidemiologyTechniques in clinical epidemiology
Techniques in clinical epidemiologyBhoj Raj Singh
Β 
Chapter 2.2 screening test
Chapter 2.2 screening testChapter 2.2 screening test
Chapter 2.2 screening testNilesh Kucha
Β 
Malimu cross sectional studies.
Malimu cross sectional studies.Malimu cross sectional studies.
Malimu cross sectional studies.Miharbi Ignasm
Β 
R0 Value & Herd Immunity
R0 Value & Herd ImmunityR0 Value & Herd Immunity
R0 Value & Herd ImmunityBhoj Raj Singh
Β 

What's hot (20)

Study designs
Study designsStudy designs
Study designs
Β 
Measurement of disease frequency
Measurement of disease frequencyMeasurement of disease frequency
Measurement of disease frequency
Β 
Epidemiological Studies
Epidemiological StudiesEpidemiological Studies
Epidemiological Studies
Β 
Epidemiological study designs
Epidemiological study designs Epidemiological study designs
Epidemiological study designs
Β 
Measures of Disease, Morbidity& mortality
Measures of Disease, Morbidity& mortalityMeasures of Disease, Morbidity& mortality
Measures of Disease, Morbidity& mortality
Β 
Study designs, Epidemiological study design, Types of studies
Study designs, Epidemiological study design, Types of studiesStudy designs, Epidemiological study design, Types of studies
Study designs, Epidemiological study design, Types of studies
Β 
Standardization of rates by Dr. Basil Tumaini
Standardization of rates by Dr. Basil TumainiStandardization of rates by Dr. Basil Tumaini
Standardization of rates by Dr. Basil Tumaini
Β 
Investigation of epidemic presentation
Investigation of epidemic presentationInvestigation of epidemic presentation
Investigation of epidemic presentation
Β 
Descriptive and Analytical Epidemiology
Descriptive and Analytical Epidemiology Descriptive and Analytical Epidemiology
Descriptive and Analytical Epidemiology
Β 
Cohort study
Cohort studyCohort study
Cohort study
Β 
Epidemiology lecture 1 introduction
Epidemiology lecture 1 introductionEpidemiology lecture 1 introduction
Epidemiology lecture 1 introduction
Β 
Life table
Life tableLife table
Life table
Β 
Measuring Disease Frequency
Measuring Disease FrequencyMeasuring Disease Frequency
Measuring Disease Frequency
Β 
Burden of Disease Analysis
Burden of Disease AnalysisBurden of Disease Analysis
Burden of Disease Analysis
Β 
Introduction to epidemiology
Introduction to epidemiologyIntroduction to epidemiology
Introduction to epidemiology
Β 
Measurement of epidemiology.pptx
Measurement of epidemiology.pptxMeasurement of epidemiology.pptx
Measurement of epidemiology.pptx
Β 
Techniques in clinical epidemiology
Techniques in clinical epidemiologyTechniques in clinical epidemiology
Techniques in clinical epidemiology
Β 
Chapter 2.2 screening test
Chapter 2.2 screening testChapter 2.2 screening test
Chapter 2.2 screening test
Β 
Malimu cross sectional studies.
Malimu cross sectional studies.Malimu cross sectional studies.
Malimu cross sectional studies.
Β 
R0 Value & Herd Immunity
R0 Value & Herd ImmunityR0 Value & Herd Immunity
R0 Value & Herd Immunity
Β 

Similar to 03 incidence preval

DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY
DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGYDESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY
DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGYNarayanan Nambu
Β 
Carl koppeschaar: Disease Radar: Measuring and Forecasting the Spread of Infe...
Carl koppeschaar: Disease Radar: Measuring and Forecasting the Spread of Infe...Carl koppeschaar: Disease Radar: Measuring and Forecasting the Spread of Infe...
Carl koppeschaar: Disease Radar: Measuring and Forecasting the Spread of Infe...FlÑvio Codeço Coelho
Β 
Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy l...
Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy l...Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy l...
Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy l...M. Luisetto Pharm.D.Spec. Pharmacology
Β 
Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy ...
Jebs covid  19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy ...Jebs covid  19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy ...
Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy ...M. Luisetto Pharm.D.Spec. Pharmacology
Β 
THE TREND AND PRONE AREAS OF CHOLERA OUTBREAKS-A REVIEW OF THE CHOLERA LINE L...
THE TREND AND PRONE AREAS OF CHOLERA OUTBREAKS-A REVIEW OF THE CHOLERA LINE L...THE TREND AND PRONE AREAS OF CHOLERA OUTBREAKS-A REVIEW OF THE CHOLERA LINE L...
THE TREND AND PRONE AREAS OF CHOLERA OUTBREAKS-A REVIEW OF THE CHOLERA LINE L...ROBERTKOGI
Β 
Principles and Methods of Epidemiologic Study
Principles and Methods of Epidemiologic StudyPrinciples and Methods of Epidemiologic Study
Principles and Methods of Epidemiologic StudyDugoGadisa
Β 
Computational Epidemiology tutorial featured at ACM Knowledge Discovery and D...
Computational Epidemiology tutorial featured at ACM Knowledge Discovery and D...Computational Epidemiology tutorial featured at ACM Knowledge Discovery and D...
Computational Epidemiology tutorial featured at ACM Knowledge Discovery and D...Biocomplexity Institute of Virginia Tech
Β 
Innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it - report
Innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it - reportInnovation: managing risk, not avoiding it - report
Innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it - reportbis_foresight
Β 
Scientific Triage: How to make strategic choices about prioritizing basic sci...
Scientific Triage: How to make strategic choices about prioritizing basic sci...Scientific Triage: How to make strategic choices about prioritizing basic sci...
Scientific Triage: How to make strategic choices about prioritizing basic sci...nfefferman
Β 
Introduction to Epidemiology.ppt
Introduction to Epidemiology.pptIntroduction to Epidemiology.ppt
Introduction to Epidemiology.pptSondosAli13
Β 
22. TCI Climate of the Nation Flagship Report 2012
22. TCI Climate of the Nation Flagship Report 201222. TCI Climate of the Nation Flagship Report 2012
22. TCI Climate of the Nation Flagship Report 2012Richard Plumpton
Β 
Principles of epidemiology.docx
Principles of epidemiology.docxPrinciples of epidemiology.docx
Principles of epidemiology.docxsdfghj21
Β 
Preparing for armageddon
Preparing for armageddonPreparing for armageddon
Preparing for armageddonRBKC
Β 
COMMUNITY DENTISTRY LECTURE 3
COMMUNITY DENTISTRY LECTURE 3COMMUNITY DENTISTRY LECTURE 3
COMMUNITY DENTISTRY LECTURE 3NoorahMurad
Β 
β€œThe Experimental Child”: Mental and Social Consequences for Children and Fam...
β€œThe Experimental Child”: Mental and Social Consequences for Children and Fam...β€œThe Experimental Child”: Mental and Social Consequences for Children and Fam...
β€œThe Experimental Child”: Mental and Social Consequences for Children and Fam...UniversitΓ© de MontrΓ©al
Β 
Discussion 1 REPLYDescriptionΒ Β Β  Β  Β The source I found w.docx
Discussion 1 REPLYDescriptionΒ Β Β  Β  Β The source I found w.docxDiscussion 1 REPLYDescriptionΒ Β Β  Β  Β The source I found w.docx
Discussion 1 REPLYDescriptionΒ Β Β  Β  Β The source I found w.docxduketjoy27252
Β 
epidemiology with part 2 (complete) 2.ppt
epidemiology with part 2 (complete)   2.pptepidemiology with part 2 (complete)   2.ppt
epidemiology with part 2 (complete) 2.pptAmosWafula3
Β 

Similar to 03 incidence preval (20)

DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY
DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGYDESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY
DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY
Β 
Carl koppeschaar: Disease Radar: Measuring and Forecasting the Spread of Infe...
Carl koppeschaar: Disease Radar: Measuring and Forecasting the Spread of Infe...Carl koppeschaar: Disease Radar: Measuring and Forecasting the Spread of Infe...
Carl koppeschaar: Disease Radar: Measuring and Forecasting the Spread of Infe...
Β 
Brosnan Davos 2
Brosnan Davos 2Brosnan Davos 2
Brosnan Davos 2
Β 
Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy l...
Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy l...Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy l...
Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy l...
Β 
Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy ...
Jebs covid  19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy ...Jebs covid  19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy ...
Jebs covid 19 pandemic and the management strategy for business and economy ...
Β 
THE TREND AND PRONE AREAS OF CHOLERA OUTBREAKS-A REVIEW OF THE CHOLERA LINE L...
THE TREND AND PRONE AREAS OF CHOLERA OUTBREAKS-A REVIEW OF THE CHOLERA LINE L...THE TREND AND PRONE AREAS OF CHOLERA OUTBREAKS-A REVIEW OF THE CHOLERA LINE L...
THE TREND AND PRONE AREAS OF CHOLERA OUTBREAKS-A REVIEW OF THE CHOLERA LINE L...
Β 
Principles and Methods of Epidemiologic Study
Principles and Methods of Epidemiologic StudyPrinciples and Methods of Epidemiologic Study
Principles and Methods of Epidemiologic Study
Β 
Computational Epidemiology tutorial featured at ACM Knowledge Discovery and D...
Computational Epidemiology tutorial featured at ACM Knowledge Discovery and D...Computational Epidemiology tutorial featured at ACM Knowledge Discovery and D...
Computational Epidemiology tutorial featured at ACM Knowledge Discovery and D...
Β 
Innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it - report
Innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it - reportInnovation: managing risk, not avoiding it - report
Innovation: managing risk, not avoiding it - report
Β 
Scientific Triage: How to make strategic choices about prioritizing basic sci...
Scientific Triage: How to make strategic choices about prioritizing basic sci...Scientific Triage: How to make strategic choices about prioritizing basic sci...
Scientific Triage: How to make strategic choices about prioritizing basic sci...
Β 
Introduction to Epidemiology.ppt
Introduction to Epidemiology.pptIntroduction to Epidemiology.ppt
Introduction to Epidemiology.ppt
Β 
Disasters: Introduction and State of the Art
Disasters: Introduction and State of the ArtDisasters: Introduction and State of the Art
Disasters: Introduction and State of the Art
Β 
22. TCI Climate of the Nation Flagship Report 2012
22. TCI Climate of the Nation Flagship Report 201222. TCI Climate of the Nation Flagship Report 2012
22. TCI Climate of the Nation Flagship Report 2012
Β 
Principles of epidemiology.docx
Principles of epidemiology.docxPrinciples of epidemiology.docx
Principles of epidemiology.docx
Β 
Preparing for armageddon
Preparing for armageddonPreparing for armageddon
Preparing for armageddon
Β 
COMMUNITY DENTISTRY LECTURE 3
COMMUNITY DENTISTRY LECTURE 3COMMUNITY DENTISTRY LECTURE 3
COMMUNITY DENTISTRY LECTURE 3
Β 
β€œThe Experimental Child”: Mental and Social Consequences for Children and Fam...
β€œThe Experimental Child”: Mental and Social Consequences for Children and Fam...β€œThe Experimental Child”: Mental and Social Consequences for Children and Fam...
β€œThe Experimental Child”: Mental and Social Consequences for Children and Fam...
Β 
Discussion 1 REPLYDescriptionΒ Β Β  Β  Β The source I found w.docx
Discussion 1 REPLYDescriptionΒ Β Β  Β  Β The source I found w.docxDiscussion 1 REPLYDescriptionΒ Β Β  Β  Β The source I found w.docx
Discussion 1 REPLYDescriptionΒ Β Β  Β  Β The source I found w.docx
Β 
epidemiology with part 2 (complete) 2.ppt
epidemiology with part 2 (complete)   2.pptepidemiology with part 2 (complete)   2.ppt
epidemiology with part 2 (complete) 2.ppt
Β 
The Historical Development of Public Health Responses to Disasters
The Historical Development of Public Health Responses to DisastersThe Historical Development of Public Health Responses to Disasters
The Historical Development of Public Health Responses to Disasters
Β 

More from Abdiwali Abdullahi Abdiwali

STATEMENT BY THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR FOR SOMALIA, PHILIPPE LAZZARINI
STATEMENT BY THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR FOR SOMALIA, PHILIPPE LAZZARINISTATEMENT BY THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR FOR SOMALIA, PHILIPPE LAZZARINI
STATEMENT BY THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR FOR SOMALIA, PHILIPPE LAZZARINIAbdiwali Abdullahi Abdiwali
Β 
Lecture Notes of Nutrition For Health Extension Workers
Lecture Notes of Nutrition For Health Extension WorkersLecture Notes of Nutrition For Health Extension Workers
Lecture Notes of Nutrition For Health Extension WorkersAbdiwali Abdullahi Abdiwali
Β 
WHO–recommended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable di...
WHO–recommended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable di...WHO–recommended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable di...
WHO–recommended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable di...Abdiwali Abdullahi Abdiwali
Β 
Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices Part 1 Defi...
Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices Part 1 Defi...Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices Part 1 Defi...
Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices Part 1 Defi...Abdiwali Abdullahi Abdiwali
Β 
POLICY MAKING PROCESS training policy influence appiah-kubi, 16 dec 2015
POLICY MAKING PROCESS training policy influence appiah-kubi, 16 dec 2015POLICY MAKING PROCESS training policy influence appiah-kubi, 16 dec 2015
POLICY MAKING PROCESS training policy influence appiah-kubi, 16 dec 2015Abdiwali Abdullahi Abdiwali
Β 

More from Abdiwali Abdullahi Abdiwali (20)

Communicable disease control
Communicable disease controlCommunicable disease control
Communicable disease control
Β 
Vector control
Vector controlVector control
Vector control
Β 
Outbreak investigation steps
Outbreak investigation stepsOutbreak investigation steps
Outbreak investigation steps
Β 
STATEMENT BY THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR FOR SOMALIA, PHILIPPE LAZZARINI
STATEMENT BY THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR FOR SOMALIA, PHILIPPE LAZZARINISTATEMENT BY THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR FOR SOMALIA, PHILIPPE LAZZARINI
STATEMENT BY THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR FOR SOMALIA, PHILIPPE LAZZARINI
Β 
Basic introduction communicable
Basic introduction communicableBasic introduction communicable
Basic introduction communicable
Β 
PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
PRIMARY HEALTH CAREPRIMARY HEALTH CARE
PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Β 
Lecture Notes of Nutrition For Health Extension Workers
Lecture Notes of Nutrition For Health Extension WorkersLecture Notes of Nutrition For Health Extension Workers
Lecture Notes of Nutrition For Health Extension Workers
Β 
HIV prevention-2020-road-map
HIV prevention-2020-road-mapHIV prevention-2020-road-map
HIV prevention-2020-road-map
Β 
Ethics in public health surveillance
Ethics in public health surveillanceEthics in public health surveillance
Ethics in public health surveillance
Β 
Health planing and management
Health planing and managementHealth planing and management
Health planing and management
Β 
WHO–recommended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable di...
WHO–recommended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable di...WHO–recommended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable di...
WHO–recommended standards for surveillance of selected vaccine-preventable di...
Β 
Expended program in Immunization
Expended program in ImmunizationExpended program in Immunization
Expended program in Immunization
Β 
Water & sanitation handbook
Water & sanitation handbookWater & sanitation handbook
Water & sanitation handbook
Β 
Somali phast step guide.
Somali phast step guide.Somali phast step guide.
Somali phast step guide.
Β 
Introduction to Health education
Introduction to Health educationIntroduction to Health education
Introduction to Health education
Β 
Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices Part 1 Defi...
Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices Part 1 Defi...Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices Part 1 Defi...
Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices Part 1 Defi...
Β 
POLICY MAKING PROCESS training policy influence appiah-kubi, 16 dec 2015
POLICY MAKING PROCESS training policy influence appiah-kubi, 16 dec 2015POLICY MAKING PROCESS training policy influence appiah-kubi, 16 dec 2015
POLICY MAKING PROCESS training policy influence appiah-kubi, 16 dec 2015
Β 
Case controlstudyi
Case controlstudyi  Case controlstudyi
Case controlstudyi
Β 
Assessmentof nutritional status
Assessmentof nutritional statusAssessmentof nutritional status
Assessmentof nutritional status
Β 
Ancylostomiasis
AncylostomiasisAncylostomiasis
Ancylostomiasis
Β 

Recently uploaded

Call Girls In Andheri East Call 9920874524 Book Hot And Sexy Girls
Call Girls In Andheri East Call 9920874524 Book Hot And Sexy GirlsCall Girls In Andheri East Call 9920874524 Book Hot And Sexy Girls
Call Girls In Andheri East Call 9920874524 Book Hot And Sexy Girlsnehamumbai
Β 
Call Girls Service Bellary Road Just Call 7001305949 Enjoy College Girls Service
Call Girls Service Bellary Road Just Call 7001305949 Enjoy College Girls ServiceCall Girls Service Bellary Road Just Call 7001305949 Enjoy College Girls Service
Call Girls Service Bellary Road Just Call 7001305949 Enjoy College Girls Servicenarwatsonia7
Β 
Vip Call Girls Anna Salai Chennai πŸ‘‰ 8250192130 β£οΈπŸ’― Top Class Girls Available
Vip Call Girls Anna Salai Chennai πŸ‘‰ 8250192130 β£οΈπŸ’― Top Class Girls AvailableVip Call Girls Anna Salai Chennai πŸ‘‰ 8250192130 β£οΈπŸ’― Top Class Girls Available
Vip Call Girls Anna Salai Chennai πŸ‘‰ 8250192130 β£οΈπŸ’― Top Class Girls AvailableNehru place Escorts
Β 
β™›VVIP Hyderabad Call Girls ChintalkuntaπŸ–•7001035870πŸ–•Riya Kappor Top Call Girl ...
β™›VVIP Hyderabad Call Girls ChintalkuntaπŸ–•7001035870πŸ–•Riya Kappor Top Call Girl ...β™›VVIP Hyderabad Call Girls ChintalkuntaπŸ–•7001035870πŸ–•Riya Kappor Top Call Girl ...
β™›VVIP Hyderabad Call Girls ChintalkuntaπŸ–•7001035870πŸ–•Riya Kappor Top Call Girl ...astropune
Β 
Low Rate Call Girls Pune Esha 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girl...
Low Rate Call Girls Pune Esha 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girl...Low Rate Call Girls Pune Esha 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girl...
Low Rate Call Girls Pune Esha 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girl...Miss joya
Β 
Call Girl Number in Panvel MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girl Number in Panvel MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night EnjoyCall Girl Number in Panvel MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girl Number in Panvel MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoybabeytanya
Β 
Premium Call Girls Cottonpet Whatsapp 7001035870 Independent Escort Service
Premium Call Girls Cottonpet Whatsapp 7001035870 Independent Escort ServicePremium Call Girls Cottonpet Whatsapp 7001035870 Independent Escort Service
Premium Call Girls Cottonpet Whatsapp 7001035870 Independent Escort Servicevidya singh
Β 
(πŸ‘‘VVIP ISHAAN ) Russian Call Girls Service Navi MumbaiπŸ–•9920874524πŸ–•Independent...
(πŸ‘‘VVIP ISHAAN ) Russian Call Girls Service Navi MumbaiπŸ–•9920874524πŸ–•Independent...(πŸ‘‘VVIP ISHAAN ) Russian Call Girls Service Navi MumbaiπŸ–•9920874524πŸ–•Independent...
(πŸ‘‘VVIP ISHAAN ) Russian Call Girls Service Navi MumbaiπŸ–•9920874524πŸ–•Independent...Taniya Sharma
Β 
Russian Call Girls in Pune Riya 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call gi...
Russian Call Girls in Pune Riya 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call gi...Russian Call Girls in Pune Riya 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call gi...
Russian Call Girls in Pune Riya 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call gi...Miss joya
Β 
Call Girl Number in Vashi MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girl Number in Vashi MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night EnjoyCall Girl Number in Vashi MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girl Number in Vashi MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoybabeytanya
Β 
πŸ’ŽVVIP Kolkata Call Girls Parganas🩱7001035870🩱Independent Girl ( Ac Rooms Avai...
πŸ’ŽVVIP Kolkata Call Girls Parganas🩱7001035870🩱Independent Girl ( Ac Rooms Avai...πŸ’ŽVVIP Kolkata Call Girls Parganas🩱7001035870🩱Independent Girl ( Ac Rooms Avai...
πŸ’ŽVVIP Kolkata Call Girls Parganas🩱7001035870🩱Independent Girl ( Ac Rooms Avai...Taniya Sharma
Β 
Russian Escorts Girls Nehru Place ZINATHI πŸ”9711199012 β˜ͺ 24/7 Call Girls Delhi
Russian Escorts Girls  Nehru Place ZINATHI πŸ”9711199012 β˜ͺ 24/7 Call Girls DelhiRussian Escorts Girls  Nehru Place ZINATHI πŸ”9711199012 β˜ͺ 24/7 Call Girls Delhi
Russian Escorts Girls Nehru Place ZINATHI πŸ”9711199012 β˜ͺ 24/7 Call Girls DelhiAlinaDevecerski
Β 
Bangalore Call Girls Hebbal Kempapura Number 7001035870 Meetin With Bangalor...
Bangalore Call Girls Hebbal Kempapura Number 7001035870  Meetin With Bangalor...Bangalore Call Girls Hebbal Kempapura Number 7001035870  Meetin With Bangalor...
Bangalore Call Girls Hebbal Kempapura Number 7001035870 Meetin With Bangalor...narwatsonia7
Β 
Call Girls Service Chennai Jiya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Chennai
Call Girls Service Chennai Jiya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service ChennaiCall Girls Service Chennai Jiya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Chennai
Call Girls Service Chennai Jiya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service ChennaiNehru place Escorts
Β 
College Call Girls Pune Mira 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girls...
College Call Girls Pune Mira 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girls...College Call Girls Pune Mira 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girls...
College Call Girls Pune Mira 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girls...Miss joya
Β 
Call Girls Service In Shyam Nagar Whatsapp 8445551418 Independent Escort Service
Call Girls Service In Shyam Nagar Whatsapp 8445551418 Independent Escort ServiceCall Girls Service In Shyam Nagar Whatsapp 8445551418 Independent Escort Service
Call Girls Service In Shyam Nagar Whatsapp 8445551418 Independent Escort Serviceparulsinha
Β 
Call Girls Yelahanka Bangalore πŸ“² 9907093804 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girls Yelahanka Bangalore πŸ“² 9907093804 πŸ’ž Full Night EnjoyCall Girls Yelahanka Bangalore πŸ“² 9907093804 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girls Yelahanka Bangalore πŸ“² 9907093804 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoynarwatsonia7
Β 
Russian Call Girls in Bangalore Manisha 7001305949 Independent Escort Service...
Russian Call Girls in Bangalore Manisha 7001305949 Independent Escort Service...Russian Call Girls in Bangalore Manisha 7001305949 Independent Escort Service...
Russian Call Girls in Bangalore Manisha 7001305949 Independent Escort Service...narwatsonia7
Β 
Call Girls Near Hotel Marine Plaza βœ” 9820252231 βœ”For 18+ VIP Call Girl At The...
Call Girls Near Hotel Marine Plaza βœ” 9820252231 βœ”For 18+ VIP Call Girl At The...Call Girls Near Hotel Marine Plaza βœ” 9820252231 βœ”For 18+ VIP Call Girl At The...
Call Girls Near Hotel Marine Plaza βœ” 9820252231 βœ”For 18+ VIP Call Girl At The...call girls in ahmedabad high profile
Β 

Recently uploaded (20)

Call Girls In Andheri East Call 9920874524 Book Hot And Sexy Girls
Call Girls In Andheri East Call 9920874524 Book Hot And Sexy GirlsCall Girls In Andheri East Call 9920874524 Book Hot And Sexy Girls
Call Girls In Andheri East Call 9920874524 Book Hot And Sexy Girls
Β 
Call Girls Service Bellary Road Just Call 7001305949 Enjoy College Girls Service
Call Girls Service Bellary Road Just Call 7001305949 Enjoy College Girls ServiceCall Girls Service Bellary Road Just Call 7001305949 Enjoy College Girls Service
Call Girls Service Bellary Road Just Call 7001305949 Enjoy College Girls Service
Β 
Vip Call Girls Anna Salai Chennai πŸ‘‰ 8250192130 β£οΈπŸ’― Top Class Girls Available
Vip Call Girls Anna Salai Chennai πŸ‘‰ 8250192130 β£οΈπŸ’― Top Class Girls AvailableVip Call Girls Anna Salai Chennai πŸ‘‰ 8250192130 β£οΈπŸ’― Top Class Girls Available
Vip Call Girls Anna Salai Chennai πŸ‘‰ 8250192130 β£οΈπŸ’― Top Class Girls Available
Β 
β™›VVIP Hyderabad Call Girls ChintalkuntaπŸ–•7001035870πŸ–•Riya Kappor Top Call Girl ...
β™›VVIP Hyderabad Call Girls ChintalkuntaπŸ–•7001035870πŸ–•Riya Kappor Top Call Girl ...β™›VVIP Hyderabad Call Girls ChintalkuntaπŸ–•7001035870πŸ–•Riya Kappor Top Call Girl ...
β™›VVIP Hyderabad Call Girls ChintalkuntaπŸ–•7001035870πŸ–•Riya Kappor Top Call Girl ...
Β 
Low Rate Call Girls Pune Esha 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girl...
Low Rate Call Girls Pune Esha 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girl...Low Rate Call Girls Pune Esha 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girl...
Low Rate Call Girls Pune Esha 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girl...
Β 
Call Girl Number in Panvel MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girl Number in Panvel MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night EnjoyCall Girl Number in Panvel MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girl Number in Panvel MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Β 
Premium Call Girls Cottonpet Whatsapp 7001035870 Independent Escort Service
Premium Call Girls Cottonpet Whatsapp 7001035870 Independent Escort ServicePremium Call Girls Cottonpet Whatsapp 7001035870 Independent Escort Service
Premium Call Girls Cottonpet Whatsapp 7001035870 Independent Escort Service
Β 
(πŸ‘‘VVIP ISHAAN ) Russian Call Girls Service Navi MumbaiπŸ–•9920874524πŸ–•Independent...
(πŸ‘‘VVIP ISHAAN ) Russian Call Girls Service Navi MumbaiπŸ–•9920874524πŸ–•Independent...(πŸ‘‘VVIP ISHAAN ) Russian Call Girls Service Navi MumbaiπŸ–•9920874524πŸ–•Independent...
(πŸ‘‘VVIP ISHAAN ) Russian Call Girls Service Navi MumbaiπŸ–•9920874524πŸ–•Independent...
Β 
Russian Call Girls in Pune Riya 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call gi...
Russian Call Girls in Pune Riya 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call gi...Russian Call Girls in Pune Riya 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call gi...
Russian Call Girls in Pune Riya 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call gi...
Β 
Call Girl Number in Vashi MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girl Number in Vashi MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night EnjoyCall Girl Number in Vashi MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girl Number in Vashi MumbaiπŸ“² 9833363713 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Β 
πŸ’ŽVVIP Kolkata Call Girls Parganas🩱7001035870🩱Independent Girl ( Ac Rooms Avai...
πŸ’ŽVVIP Kolkata Call Girls Parganas🩱7001035870🩱Independent Girl ( Ac Rooms Avai...πŸ’ŽVVIP Kolkata Call Girls Parganas🩱7001035870🩱Independent Girl ( Ac Rooms Avai...
πŸ’ŽVVIP Kolkata Call Girls Parganas🩱7001035870🩱Independent Girl ( Ac Rooms Avai...
Β 
Russian Escorts Girls Nehru Place ZINATHI πŸ”9711199012 β˜ͺ 24/7 Call Girls Delhi
Russian Escorts Girls  Nehru Place ZINATHI πŸ”9711199012 β˜ͺ 24/7 Call Girls DelhiRussian Escorts Girls  Nehru Place ZINATHI πŸ”9711199012 β˜ͺ 24/7 Call Girls Delhi
Russian Escorts Girls Nehru Place ZINATHI πŸ”9711199012 β˜ͺ 24/7 Call Girls Delhi
Β 
Bangalore Call Girls Hebbal Kempapura Number 7001035870 Meetin With Bangalor...
Bangalore Call Girls Hebbal Kempapura Number 7001035870  Meetin With Bangalor...Bangalore Call Girls Hebbal Kempapura Number 7001035870  Meetin With Bangalor...
Bangalore Call Girls Hebbal Kempapura Number 7001035870 Meetin With Bangalor...
Β 
Call Girls Service Chennai Jiya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Chennai
Call Girls Service Chennai Jiya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service ChennaiCall Girls Service Chennai Jiya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Chennai
Call Girls Service Chennai Jiya 7001305949 Independent Escort Service Chennai
Β 
College Call Girls Pune Mira 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girls...
College Call Girls Pune Mira 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girls...College Call Girls Pune Mira 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girls...
College Call Girls Pune Mira 9907093804 Short 1500 Night 6000 Best call girls...
Β 
Escort Service Call Girls In Sarita Vihar,, 99530Β°56974 Delhi NCR
Escort Service Call Girls In Sarita Vihar,, 99530Β°56974 Delhi NCREscort Service Call Girls In Sarita Vihar,, 99530Β°56974 Delhi NCR
Escort Service Call Girls In Sarita Vihar,, 99530Β°56974 Delhi NCR
Β 
Call Girls Service In Shyam Nagar Whatsapp 8445551418 Independent Escort Service
Call Girls Service In Shyam Nagar Whatsapp 8445551418 Independent Escort ServiceCall Girls Service In Shyam Nagar Whatsapp 8445551418 Independent Escort Service
Call Girls Service In Shyam Nagar Whatsapp 8445551418 Independent Escort Service
Β 
Call Girls Yelahanka Bangalore πŸ“² 9907093804 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girls Yelahanka Bangalore πŸ“² 9907093804 πŸ’ž Full Night EnjoyCall Girls Yelahanka Bangalore πŸ“² 9907093804 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Call Girls Yelahanka Bangalore πŸ“² 9907093804 πŸ’ž Full Night Enjoy
Β 
Russian Call Girls in Bangalore Manisha 7001305949 Independent Escort Service...
Russian Call Girls in Bangalore Manisha 7001305949 Independent Escort Service...Russian Call Girls in Bangalore Manisha 7001305949 Independent Escort Service...
Russian Call Girls in Bangalore Manisha 7001305949 Independent Escort Service...
Β 
Call Girls Near Hotel Marine Plaza βœ” 9820252231 βœ”For 18+ VIP Call Girl At The...
Call Girls Near Hotel Marine Plaza βœ” 9820252231 βœ”For 18+ VIP Call Girl At The...Call Girls Near Hotel Marine Plaza βœ” 9820252231 βœ”For 18+ VIP Call Girl At The...
Call Girls Near Hotel Marine Plaza βœ” 9820252231 βœ”For 18+ VIP Call Girl At The...
Β 

03 incidence preval

  • 1. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 1 Epidemiologic measures: Incidence & prevalence Principles of Epidemiology for Public Health (EPID600) Victor J. Schoenbach, PhD home page Department of Epidemiology Gillings School of Global Public Health University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill www.unc.edu/epid600/
  • 2. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 2 Quotations that demonstrate the value of humility about predicting the future (authenticity not established) Courtesy of Suzanne Cloutier, 11/17/1998 Famous last words
  • 3. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 3 β€œLouis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.” - Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872 FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
  • 4. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 4 β€œThis `telephoneΒ΄ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” - Western Union internal memo, 1876 (Source: 2000 National Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Awards special insert in USA Today, 2/11/2000, p9B) FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
  • 5. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 5 β€œEverything that can be invented has been invented.” - Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Patent Office,1899 FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
  • 6. 9/11/2005 Incidence and prevalence 6 β€œThe wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?” - David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in radio in the 1920s. FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
  • 7. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 7 β€œMy thesis in this lecture is that macroeconomics . . . has succeeded: Its central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.” - Robert E. Lucas, Jr., American Economics Association Presidential Address, January 10, 2003 http://home.uchicago.edu/~sogrodow/homepage/paddress03.pdf FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
  • 8. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 8 The population perspective requires measuring disease in populations β€’ Science is built on classification and measurement. β€’ Reality is infinitely detailed, infinitely complex. β€’ Classification and measurement seek to capture the essential attributes.
  • 9. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 9 Deriving meaning from stimuli Vase or faces? Which line is longer?
  • 10. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 10 Measurement β€œcaptures” the phenomenon Classification and measurement are based on: 1. Objective of the classification 2. Conceptual model (understanding of the phenomenon) 3. Availability of data (technology)
  • 11. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 11 O O O O O O O         An example population (N=200)
  • 12. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 12         O How can we quantify disease in populations?
  • 13. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 13         O O How can we quantify disease in populations?
  • 14. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 14         O O O How can we quantify disease in populations?
  • 15. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 15         O O O OO How can we quantify disease in populations?
  • 16. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 16         O O O OO O How can we quantify disease in populations?
  • 17. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 17         O O O OO O How can we quantify the frequency?
  • 18. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 18         O O O OO O Rate of occurrence of new cases per unit time (e.g., 1 per month)
  • 19. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 19         O 1 new case in month 1
  • 20. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 20         O O 1 new case in month 2
  • 21. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 21         O O O 1 new case in month 3, for a total of 3 cases
  • 22. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 22         O O O OO 2 new cases in month 4
  • 23. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 23         O O O OO O 1 new case in month 5 (total=6)
  • 24. 5/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 24         O O O OO O O 1 case in month 6
  • 25. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 25         O O O OO O O O 1 new case in month 7
  • 26. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 26         O O O OO O O O OO 2 new cases in month 8
  • 27. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 27         O O O OO O O O OO O O 2 cases in month 9
  • 28. 1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 28         O O O OO O O O OO O O Rate of occurrence of new cases during 9 months: 1 case/month to 2 cases/month
  • 29. 1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 29 Number of cases depends on length of interval Divide by length of time interval, so can compare across intervals Number of new cases Rate of new cases = ––––––––––––––––– Time interval = 12 cases / 9 months = 1.33 cases / month
  • 30. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 30 Number of cases depends on population size So, divide by population and time: Number of new cases Incidence rate = –––––––––––––––––– Population-time
  • 31. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 31 How to estimate population-time? Population at risk: the people eligible to become a case and to be counted as one. In this example that population declines as each case occurs. So estimate population-time as . . .
  • 32. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 32 Population-time = Method 1: Add up the time that each person is at risk Method 2: Add up the population at risk during each time segment Method 3: Multiply the average size of the population at risk by the length of the time interval
  • 33. 1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 33 Estimating population-time - method 2 Total population-time over 9 months = 200 + 199 + 198 + 197 + 195 + 194 + 193 + 192 + 190 = 1,758 person-months = 146.5 person-years However, cases are not at risk for a full month.
  • 34. 1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 34 Estimating population-time - method 2 - better Total population-time over 9 months = 199.5 + 198.5 + 197.5 + 196 + 194.5 + 193.5 + 192.5 + 191 + 189 = 1,752 person-months = 146 person-years assuming that cases develop, on average, in the middle of the month
  • 35. 1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 35 Estimating population-time - method 3 Average size of the population at risk during the 9 months = 195.3 (1,758 / 9) or approximately: (200 + 188) /2 = 194 Population-time = 195.3 x 9 months or (approximately) 194 x 9 months = 1,746 person-months = 145.5 person-years
  • 36. 1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 36 Equivalent to - method 3 Take initial size of population at risk and reduce it for time the people were not at risk due to acquiring the disease: 200 - 12/2 = 194 (approximately) Population-time = 194 x 9 months = 1,746 person-months = 145.5 person-years
  • 37. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 37 Incidence rate (β€œincidence density”) Number of new cases ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Avg population at risk Γ— Time interval Number of new cases = –––––––––––––––––––– Population-time
  • 38. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 38 O O O O O O O         What proportion of the population at risk are affected after 5 months?
  • 39. 1/30/2004 Incidence and prevalence 39         O What proportion of the population is affected after 1 month? (1/200)
  • 40. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 40         O O What proportion of the population is affected after 2 months? (2/200)
  • 41. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 41         O O O What proportion of the population is affected after 3 months? (3/200)
  • 42. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 42         O O O OO What proportion of the population is affected after 4 months? (5/200)
  • 43. 1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 43         O O O OO O 6 / 200 = 0.03 = 3% = 30 / 1,000 in 5 months
  • 44. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 44 Incidence proportion (β€œcumulative incidence”) Number of new cases 5-month CI = ––––––––––––––––––– Population at risk Incidence proportion estimates risk.
  • 45. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 45 Incidence rate versus incidence proportion β€’ Incidence rate measures how rapidly cases are occurring. β€’ Incidence proportion is cumulative. β€’ When care only about the β€œbottom line” (i.e., what has happened by the end of given period): incidence proportion (CI).
  • 46. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 46 Incidence rate versus incidence proportion β€’ If risk period is long (e.g., cancer), we usually observe only a portion. β€’ To compare results from studies with different length of follow-up, use incidence rate (IR) β€’ If risk period is short, we usually observe all of it and can use incidence proportion.
  • 47. Incidence rate versus incidence proportion (rare disease, IR = 0.005 / month) 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 47 (see spreadsheet at epidemiolog.net/studymat/)
  • 48. Incidence rate versus incidence proportion (common disease, IR = 0.1 / month) 2/7/2012 Incidence and prevalence 48
  • 49. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 49 Case fatality rate β€œCase fatality rate” (but it’s really a proportion) = proportion of cases who die (in a specified time interval) β€’ Like a β€œcumulative incidence of death” in cases [ β€œincidence rate of death” in cases = β€œtermination rate” = 1/(average survival time)]
  • 50. 1/30/2007 Incidence and prevalence 50 Mortality rate Number of deaths Mortality rate = –––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Population at risk Γ— Time interval Number of deaths Annual mortality rate = –––––––––––––––––––––– Mid-year population (x 1 yr)
  • 51. 6/6/2002 Incidence and prevalence 51 Mortality rate (more notes) Number of deaths Mortality rate = –––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Population at risk Γ— Time interval Number of deaths Annual mortality rate = –––––––––––––––––– Mid-year population
  • 52. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 52 Mortality rates versus incidence rates β€’ Mortality data are more generally available β€’ Fatality reflects many factors, so mortality rates may not be a good surrogate of incidence rates β€’ Death certificate cause of death not always accurate or useful
  • 53. 1/9/2007 Incidence and prevalence 53 Prevalence – another important proportion Number of existing (and new) cases Prevalence = ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Population at risk
  • 54. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 54         O O O OO O O 1 new case, 1 death
  • 55. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 55         O O O OO O O O 1 new case, 1 new death
  • 56. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 56         O O O OO O O O OO 2 new cases, no deaths
  • 57. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 57         O O O OO O O O OO O O 2 new cases, 1 new death
  • 58. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 58         O O O OO O O O OO O O What is the prevalence? (9 / 197)
  • 59. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 59 Fine points . . . β€’Who is β€œat risk”? β€’ Endometrial cancer? Prostate cancer? Breast cancer? β€’ Only women who have not had a hysterectomy? β€œCould” develop the condition + β€œwould” be counted.
  • 60. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 60 More fine points β€’ Age? β€’ Immunity? β€’ Genetically susceptible?
  • 61. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 61 More fine points . . . β€’ How do we measure time? β€’ Are 10 people followed for 10 years the same as 100 people followed for 1 year? β€’ Aging of the cohort? Secular changes?
  • 62. 9/22/2005, 9/8/2008 Incidence and prevalence 62 Fine points . . . β€’ Importance of stating units and scaling unless they are clear from the context – e.g., 120 per 100,000 person-years = 10 per 100,000 person-months – Hazards from lack of clarity
  • 63. 1/30/2004 Incidence and prevalence 63 β€œYou can never, never take anything for granted.” Noel Hinners, vice president for flight systems at Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Denver, concerning the loss of the Martian Climate Orbiter due to the Lockheed Martin spacecraft team’s having reported measurements in English units whiles the orbiter’s navigation team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California assumed the measurements were in metric units.
  • 64. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 64 Relation of incidence and prevalence β€’ Prevalence depends on incidence β€’ Higher incidence leads to higher prevalence if duration of cases does not change. β€’ Limitation of the bathtub analogy – flow rate needs to be expressed relative to the size of the source β€’ Introducing a new analogy . . .
  • 65. 9/23/2002 Incidence and prevalence 65
  • 66. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 66 Population at risk Existing cases Deaths, cures, etc.
  • 67. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 67 Incidence, prevalence, duration of hospitalization Remote community of 101,000 people One hospital, patient census = 1,000 Steady state 500 admissions per week Prevalence = 1,000/101,000 = 9.9/1,000 IR = 500/100,000 = 5/1,000/week Duration Prevalence / IR = 2 weeks
  • 68. 1/25/2011 Incidence and prevalence 68 Relation of incidence and prevalence Under somewhat special conditions, Prevalence odds = incidence Γ— duration Prevalence incidence Γ— duration (see spreadsheet at www.epidemiolog.net/studymat/)
  • 69. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 69 Standardization β€’ When objective is comparability, need to adjust for different distributions of other determinants β€’ Strategy: β€’ Analyze within each subgroup (stratum) β€’ Take a weighted average across strata β€’ Use same weights for all populations (See the Evolving Text on www.epidemiolog.net)
  • 70. 8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 70 Familiar example of weighted averages β€’ Liters of petrol per kilometer - differs for Interstate (0.050 LpK) and non-Interstate (0.100 LpK) driving. β€’ To compare different cars, can: β€’ Compare them for each type of driving separately (stratified analysis) β€’ Average for each car, using one set of weights (e.g., 80% Interstate, 20% non-Interstate) β€’ E.g. = 0.80 x 0.050 LpK + 0.20 x 0.100 LpK = 0.060 LpK
  • 71. 8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 71 Comparing a Suburu and a Mazda Juan drives a Suburu 800 km on Interstate highways and 200 km on other roads. His car uses 0.050 LpK on Interstates and 0.100 LpK on other roads, for a total of 60 liters of petrol, an average of 0.060 LpK (60 L / 1000 km). His overall LpK can be expressed as a weighted average: (800/1000) x 0.050 LpK + (200/1000) x 0.100 LpK = 0.80 x 0.050 LpK + 0.20 x 0.100 LpK = 0.060 LpK
  • 72. 8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 72 Comparing a Suburu and a Mazda Shizu drives her Mazda on a different route, with only 200 km on Interstate and 800 km on other roads. She uses 0.045 lpk on Interstate highways and 0.080 LpK on non-Interstate. She uses a total of 73 liters, or 0.073 LpK. Her overall LpK can be expressed as a weighted average: (200/1,000) x 0.045 LpK + (800/1,000) x 0.080 LpK = 0.20 x 0.045 LpK + 0.80 x 0.080 LpK =0.073 LpK
  • 73. 8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 73 How can we compare their fuel efficiency? Juan Shizu Km LpK Km LpK Interstate 800 0.050 200 0.045 Other 200 0.100 800 0.080 Total 1,000 0.060 1,000 0.073
  • 74. 8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 74 Total fuel efficiency is not comparable because weights are different Juan Shizu % LpK % LpK Interstate 80 0.050 20 0.045 Other 20 0.100 80 0.080 Total 100% 0.060 100% 0.073
  • 75. 8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 75 By adopting a β€œstandard” set of weights we can compare fairly Juan Shizu % LpK % LpK Interstate 60 0.050 60 0.045 Other 40 0.100 40 0.080 Total 100 0.060 100 0.073 Standardized 0.070 0.059
  • 76. 8/17/2009 Incidence and prevalence 76 Comparing a Suburu and a Mazda β€’Juan’s Suburu: = 0.60 x 0.050 LpK + 0.40 x 0.100 LpK =0.070 LpK β€’Shizu’s Mazda: = 0.60 x 0.045 LpK + 0.40 x 0.080 LpK =0.059 LpK The choice of weights may often affect the results of the comparison.
  • 77. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 77 β€œI'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper.” - Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in β€œGone With The Wind” FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
  • 78. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 78 β€œA cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make.” - Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies. FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
  • 79. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 79 β€œComputers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.” - Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949 FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future
  • 80. 5/20/2002 Incidence and prevalence 80 β€œI think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” -Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943 FAMOUS LAST WORDS: quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future

Editor's Notes

  1. This lecture will cover some of the key measures of health and disease in populations, and the relations among these indicators.
  2. Famous last words Learning should be fun, so to put us in the right frame of mind, here are some allegedly real quotations that demonstrate the value of humility in predicting the future. Most of them were provided to me by a former EPID 168 student, but I don’t know where she found them.
  3. β€œLouis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.” This quote is attributed to Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, in 1872.
  4. β€œThis β€˜telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” According to USA Today, that assessment was in a Western Union internal memorandum, in 1876.
  5. β€œEverything that can be invented has been invented.” This declaration is attributed to Charles Duell, US Patent Office Commissioner in 1899.
  6. β€œThe wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?” This analysis is attributed to associates of David Sarnoff, in response to his urgings for investment in radio in the 1920s. David Sarnoff eventually became president and later chair of the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) and was a giant figure in the development of radio and television. (see http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/S/htmlS/sarnoffdavi/sarnoffdavi.htm) And now, back to epidemiology . . . . The next slide is titled β€œThe population perspective requires measuring disease in populations”.
  7. And here’s one I came across on my own, from Robert E. Lucas, Jr.’s Presidential Address to the American Economics Association on January 10, 2003 : β€œMy thesis in this lecture is that macroeconomics . . . has succeeded: Its central problem of depression-prevention has been solved, for all practical purposes, and has in fact been solved for many decades.” http://home.uchicago.edu/~sogrodow/homepage/paddress03.pdf I suppose that macroeconomic theory did prevent a depression in 2008-2009, but it didn’t always feel that way!
  8. Public health is distinguished by its population perspective, in contrast to the individual perspective of clinical medicine. Epidemiology is a basic science of population health, and in order to study population health we need to construct measures for that purpose. Science is built on classification and measurement. Reality is infinitely detailed, infinitely complex, and it is simply not possible to work with all of that detail. Thus, every step in the process of understanding reality involves extraction and abstraction of elements we regard as meaningful. For example, although you are reading words on paper or a computer screen, your eyes are receiving a great variety of visual stimuli. Your retina is passing some but not all of these on to your visual cortex, the part of your brain responsible for vision. The visual cortex in turn passes a representation of what it has received on to the areas of your brain where cognition takes place. The visual cortex has β€œinterpreted” the image that it received from the retina. This representation is then β€œinterpreted” by the frontal cortex, so that you recognize and attach meanings to the letters, words, punctuation, etc. There may be imperfections on the paper or dust on the screen. Some of the letters may be slightly distorted. The intensity and sharpness of the print or image will vary. But the brain can ignore all of these β€œirrelevant” attributes since it has learned which attributes convey meaning and which do not.
  9. Our ability to perceive visual and auditory objects in the presence of incomplete data, noise, and distortion illustrate how extraction and abstraction work, whereas optical illusions illustrate how these processes can mislead us.* But there is no other way, so from the infinity of stimuli in the world we observe, we create categories and perceive relations among them which attach meaning to some differences and not to others. In doing so we try to β€œcapture” the essential attributes of what we observe so that we can derive meaning. Source for optical illusions: Eric H. Chudler, University of Washington. http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/chvision.html See Science 25 June 2010;328:648
  10. When they work well, measurement and classification β€œcapture” the phenomenon by identifying and/or quantifying the essential attributes or characteristics within the totality. There is no single classification that is the β€œright one” for all purposes. Rather, the appropriate classification and measurement for a particular phenomenon are based on three factors: 1) our objective in creating the classification or measurement, 2) the conceptual model within which we are operating, and 3) the availability of data, which in turn is determined by the technology we can apply. These three considerations – objective, conceptual model, and availability of data – will arise each time we need to create, select, or evaluate a measure or classification scheme. We’re all familiar with the mean, or average, as a summary measure of a characteristic in a population. The focus of this lecture is the measurement of disease frequency, or more generally, of the frequency of an event, condition (e.g., fitness, immunity, longevity), or characteristic (e.g., right-handedness, usual diet, or exposure to environmental pollution). So the objective is to measure frequency of something in a population. Our conceptual model and the availability of data will depend on the specific characteristic or condition of interest.
  11. Speaking of β€œcapturing the phenomenon”, let’s see if we can do that with this schematic representation of a population, that includes the β€œessential” aspects for our purpose. Here is a population of 200 women, men, and children.
  12. Suppose that during the first month of observation, one of the people becomes ill with H1N1 influenza (β€œswine flu”). The new case is indicated by a bold red circle.
  13. During the next month, another person develops the disease (another bold red circle). (The previous case is indicated by a faint gray circle.)
  14. Next month, another new case.
  15. And now two more new cases.
  16. And another.
  17. And another. Got the picture? OK. Now, how might we quantify the frequency of disease in this population? What are the essential attributes of what we have been watching? One attribute is the number of cases. Another is the number of months. So our measure will have the number of cases and the number of months.
  18. Let’s replay those slides quickly and add a few more?
  19. The first case occurred during month 1.
  20. There was another (new) case in month 2.
  21. 1 new case in month 3, for a total of 3 cases.
  22. 2 new cases in month 4. Does this indicate an increase in the rate?
  23. 1 new case in month 5
  24. 1 new case in month 6, for a total of 7 cases. Notice the empty circle in the lower right – the person at that location developed the disease in month 2 but is no longer in the population, due to death or out-migration. Does that make a difference for our count? That depends on our objective. The fact that the person is no longer in the population does not really change the occurrence of the disease, though it does change the number of people in the population who have the disease. We will be interested in the latter concept later in the lecture. For now, though, our objective is disease occurrence, so we ignore what happens to people after they develop the disease.
  25. Another new case, another exit – 8 cases in 7 months so far.
  26. Two more new cases, making 10 in 8 months.
  27. And two new more cases (and one exit), for a total of 12 new cases over 9 months.
  28. So we have observed the population for 9 months. The number of new cases we observed (12) does provide a measure of frequency. In some circumstances, such as the SARS outbreak, the count would be sufficient for some purposes. But if the disease continues to occur, that measure has a limitation. The value will change according to the length of time that we observe the population. What else can we do? How about if we estimate the rate of occurrence of disease? In some months we saw two new cases; in most months, though, there was one new case. So the rate of occurrence of new cases during the 9 months must be somewhere between 1 case/month and 2 cases/month. What would be a good measure of disease occurrence?
  29. One familiar way is to divide the number of cases by the length of the time interval. That gives us an average rate of new cases. With 12 cases in 9 months, that rate is 1.33 cases/month. We measure the speed of a vehicle we are driving not by the odometer alone (distance traveled) but by the distance divided by the time it took us to cover that distance. In more time we expect to cover more distance, so the distance alone is not a good measure of the speed of the car (it would be an adequate measure if we always drove for the same length of time, but that is not how driving works). So we measure a car’s average speed as the ratio of the distance traveled to the length of time we have been driving. Similarly, we can measure the average rate of occurrence of new cases as the ratio of the number of cases that have occurred to the length of time during which they occurred. In this case, that rate is 12 cases / 9 months, or 1.33 cases/month. However, does this rate meet our needs for a measure of disease occurrence in populations? Not really. The population we observed had 200 people in it. What if we had been observing a larger population under exactly the same conditions. If the β€œforce of morbidity” were the same in the larger population, would we not expect to have observed more cases per unit time? If so, then this rate is not quite what we need.
  30. Since the number of cases generally depends on the size of the population, it makes sense to divide not only by the length of the time interval but also by the size of the population at risk – the number of people who were available to develop a disease and the time period for which they were at risk. We refer to the ratio of the number of cases to the combination of population and time as the incidence rate. The incidence rate serves to quantify the frequency of disease occurrence in a population per person and per unit time. As we have derived it here, the incidence rate is an average rate, in the sense that we have ignored the possibility that the rate may have been changing from month to month. For the present we are assuming that the fluctuations we observed are not meaningful for our purposes. We are assuming that there is some underlying constant rate of disease occurrence, and our average rate provides an estimate of that constant rate. But the rate could change over time, for example, by season.
  31. So the incidence rate is constructed from a measure of population-time, a combination of population size and time at risk. Since the size of the population at risk often changes over time, we estimate population-time as the summation of how many people were at risk for how long. Those of you who know calculus can think of population-time as the area under the graph of number of people at risk as a function of time.
  32. In practice, we usually estimate the total population time at risk in one of three ways: Method 1: Add up each person’s time. If we know the amount of time that each member of the population was at risk, we can take the sum of those times, e.g., 3 months for person A + 2 months for person B + 2.5 months for person C, etc.. Method 2: Add each time’s people. If we know the size of the population at risk during each small segment of time, then we can add up these sizes, e.g., 500 people in year 1 + 700 people in year 2 + 600 people in year 3. Method 3: Multiply average time by average number of people. If we do not have such detailed information but we know the average size of the population, we can estimate population time as the average size of the population at risk multiplied by the number of time units in the risk interval, e.g., 600 people x 3 months.
  33. This slide illustrates Method 2 with our little population example. As a first approximation to the total population-time over 9 months, we could simply add up the number of people at risk (200+199+198+197+195+194+193+192+190), which is 1,758 person-months, or 146.5 person-years. This procedure assumes that once a person becomes a case s/he is no longer at risk to become another case), since we have removed that person from the population at risk for subsequent months. That is a reasonable assumption for diseases like H1N1 influenza or coronary heart disease, for example. The disease is regarded as having occurred one time, even if different clinical manifestations and even recurrences occur at various times thereafter. One shortcoming of the above calculation, though, is that it ignores the fact that a person who becomes a case is no longer at risk for the rest of that month, either.
  34. We can improve our approximation by adjusting for the fact that once a person becomes a case, s/he is no longer at risk for the rest of the month. If we suppose that cases develop randomly during the months, it is approximately equivalent to treat them as though each case occurred in the middle of the month. In that event, each person who becomes a case is at risk for a half-month, on average. So the population time at risk during the first month is 200 people less 0.5 for the one person who became a case, which equals 199.5. The result is the same as counting the 199 people who did not become cases and adding 0.5 for the person who did become a case. Making this adjustment to the person-time for each month gives us an estimate that is smaller by the number of cases times 0.5 months.
  35. If we do not know the number of people at risk in each small interval during the follow-up period, or if it is too tedious or not worth the effort to take the sum, we can use Method 3. To do this we can estimate the size of the population at risk by taking the average of the size at the beginning and the size at the end, and then multiplying this average size by the length of the time period. This method assumes that the number of cases is about the same in each month.
  36. An equivalent way to estimate the average population size is to take the starting population and subtract half of the number of cases, since if we assume that cases occurred evenly during the period, each case was at risk for, on average, half of the period. So we take the 200 people we started with and subtract a half-person for each of the 12 cases. The result (194) is the approximate population size, which we then multiply by the length of the time period. So we can proceed as if only the non-cases were followed up and then add in some person-time for the people who became cases or we can proceed as if everyone in the population were followed for the whole period but then reduce this for the people who became cases. If you want to go to the mezzanine in a hotel where the elevator stops only at the ground and first floors, you can take the elevator to the ground floor and walk up to the mezzanine or take the elevator to the 1st floor and walk down. So there are two equivalent ways in our numerical example. All of these methods of estimating population-time assume that people are no longer at risk once they become a case. For some events we may want to regard people as still at risk of experiencing another event (e.g., experiencing a minor fall). In that case people could be regarded as being at risk during the entire period, so we would not need to reduce the size of the population at risk for the number of cases. But for various reasons we might want to define the event as β€œa first fall”, in which case we would proceed as before.
  37. So our (average) incidence rate, sometimes called β€œincidence density” is defined as the number of new cases divided by population-time (the average size of the population at risk multiplied by the length of the time interval). The incidence rate tells us how rapidly cases have been occurring in the population. Note that when we are estimating incidence in an open population rather than a fixed cohort, we generally use the midpoint population as the average population at risk. So if there were 172,570 cases of lung cancer during 2005, and the population estimate for July 1st of that year is 280,000,000 people, then the (unadjusted) incidence of lung cancer is estimated as 0.000616 per year, or 61.6 per 100,000 person-years. Although β€œper year” is frequently omitted, the number is ambiguous without units (e.g., a rate can be expressed β€œper month during 2005”). Why have two terms (incidence rate, incidence density) for the same measure? Terminology used in epidemiology varies by person, place, and time. Different authors use different terms, different schools use different terms, and the terms in use change over time. We need to know the synonyms so we can understand what we hear and read. β€œIncidence rate” and β€œincidence density” both refer to the same measure.
  38. What if change our objective slightly and ask a different question? Instead of asking for the rate of occurrence, let us ask what proportion (of the population at risk) is affected after a certain time interval, say 5 months. For example, we might ask what proportion of women who become pregnant obtain prenatal care by the end of their fifth month of pregnancy.
  39. In month 1, there was one new case.
  40. In month 2, a second new case occurred.
  41. By the end of month 3, three new cases have occurred.
  42. Two new cases occurred in month 4, bringing the count to 5.
  43. And in month 5 one more new case occurred, so that at the end of 5 months the proportion of the population that was affected was 6 cases in 200 people, or 0.03. If we prefer not to use decimals, or at least would rather have fewer decimal digits, we can express this proportion as a percentage (3%), which is the same as β€œper 100”, or we can express the proportion as a number per 1,000, as 30 per 1,000. These expressions are simply alternate ways of expressing the same value, and it is largely a matter of personal preference (or sometimes convention) which variant to use. It is important, though, that we indicate the location of the decimal point, so that if we wish to write 0.03 as 30, we had better write it as 30 per 1,000 or 30/1,000. It is also important that we indicate the time interval. After all, this proportion was different after each month passed, so if we don’t specify β€œ5 months” then the 0.03 is quite ambiguous. So when we report incidence, β€œtime is of the essence. For an incidence rate, it is essential to state the unit of time. For an incidence proportion, it is essential to give the length of the time interval.
  44. The measure we have just derived is called incidence proportion or cumulative incidence. It’s formula is simply the number of new cases (regardless of what happened to them after they developed the disease) divided by the size of the population at risk. Here, we do not have to divide by the time interval, since we are not defining a rate of occurrence per unit time, but rather a summation of what has happened over a time interval. As noted, we do need to specify the length of the time interval. The term β€œrisk” is typically used to refer to the probability that an (adverse) event will occur. The average risk for a member of a cohort during a specified period if time is conveniently estimated by the incidence proportion (IP) for that cohort, assuming that the outcome is known for all cohort members at the end of the period. Because the average risk and IP have the same numerical value, the terms are often used interchangeably. Since the IP measures the accumulation of cases over time, it is directly related to the rate at which cases are occurring. If the incidence rate (IR) is constant and each cohort member can become a case only once (or we define a β€œcase” as the first event for a person), then the IP is approximately equal to the IR multiplied by the length of the time period. The approximation is very close when the IP is small (e.g., less than 0.10). When IP is not small, then the proportion of the cohort still at risk declines noticeably as cases occur. If IR is constant, then ln(1 – IP) = –IR*t, or IP = 1 – exp(-IR*t).
  45. The availability of two kinds of incidence measures - incidence rate and incidence proportion (incidence density and cumulative incidence - is sometimes a source of confusion and puzzlement about which one should be used in a given situation. Perhaps the simplest way to make the distinction is to keep in mind the word β€œcumulative” in cumulative incidence. The cumulative incidence is cumulative in the sense that it quantifies the situation at the end of the follow-up period. The incidence rate quantifies how rapidly cases are occurring during the follow-up period. The accumulation of all those occurrences is expressed in cumulative incidence. Incidence rate measures the process; cumulative incidence measures the end result.
  46. This distinction suggests some ways for choosing between ID and CI. If the β€œrisk period” – the period during which the population under study remains at risk – is long (e.g., adult cancers), then most studies will cover only a part of the risk period, and the length of the follow-up period will vary from study to study. It will therefore be much easier to compare incidence rates across different studies than it will be to compare incidence proportions, because the longer the follow-up period, the larger the incidence proportion (cumulative incidence) will tend to be. In contrast, if the risk period is short (e.g., food poisoning after a contaminated meal), we are often more interested in comparing incidence proportions for groups of people according to the food they ate than in comparing their rates of disease per hour. Among other things, the rate will change during the time since exposure, so that an average will be a very inadequate summary. In fact, if we lengthen the follow-up time to include a longer period even though the number of new cases has become very small, the incidence rate may become tiny. The cumulative incidence, however, will change little.
  47. When the incidence rate is low, the population at risk changes only slightly. So incidence proportion is approximately equal to the incidence rate multiplied by the period of observation, IP ~= IR x t.
  48. When the incidence rate is high, then the population at risk diminishes noticeably, so that a constant incidence rate yields fewer cases and incidence proportion cannot rise as rapidly.
  49. Incidence rate and incidence proportion are the two principal concepts that epidemiologists use to describe and analyze the frequency of occurrence of a disease or other health-related condition or characteristic in a population. Much of epidemiology deals with deaths, though, since counts of deaths are often more accurate than counts of cases of a disease that no one is paying special attention to. The relation between incidence (events) and mortality (deaths) depends on how often and/or rapidly the disease is fatal. One measure of this relation is the proportion of cases who die in a given time, the case fatality rate (it’s really a case fatality proportion, but proportions are often called β€œrates” in epidemiology for sociological reasons undoubtedly). Mathematically, the case fatality rate is completely analogous to a β€œcumulative incidence of death” where the population at risk consists of existing cases. There is also an analog to an β€œincidence rate of death” among cases, which is called the termination rate. Conveniently, the reciprocal of the termination rate is average survival time of an existing case.
  50. Death is obviously important both from a public health perspective, and because it is also important from a legal perspective, counts of deaths in themselves (i.e., death from any cause) are often more readily available and more accurate than other population statistics. So demography and descriptive epidemiology make extensive use of death rates (also called mortality rates). Do note the important distinction between fatality rate and mortality rate. A β€œfatality rate” is a proportion of people who have a condition; a mortality rate is a rate[i.e., per unit time] for a population of people who may or may not have various conditions).
  51. A mortality rate is essentially an β€œincidence density” of death in some population. Thus, the numerator consists of deaths (i.e., events) and denominator consists of population-time. Since the most common type of mortality rate is an annual mortality rate, expressed per 1,000 person-years, the unit of time is often omitted. However, this is ambiguous, since any annual rate can also be expressed per month, per week, etc. By convention, an estimate of the mid-year population is used as an estimate of the average population during the year. If the size of the population is not changing during the year, it makes no difference whether the population size from the beginning, middle, or end of the year is used – they will all be the same. If the population is steadily increasing or steadily decreasing, then the mid-year population will provide a better approximation to the average number of people at risk during the year than will other convenient choices. Since multiplying the mid-year population by the interval length of one-year does not change its numerical value, the formula is written with just the mid-year population in the denominator. However, if the number of deaths is small one may want to compute an annual average over several years to obtain a more precise estimate. In that case the numerator will contain the total number of deaths occurring during the several-year period, and the denominator will contain an estimate of the entire population time, such as the mid-period population estimate multiplied by the number of years.
  52. As noted, mortality data are often more available and are therefore often used when we might really prefer to analyze data on incidence. The problem, of course, is that unless a disease kills everyone who gets it and in about the same length of time, then differences in death rates may reflect differences in fatality rather than in the occurrence of the disease itself. So a group may appear to have a greater risk of a disease when the real reason their mortality rate is higher is that they have less access to effective medical care. An additional problem is that the cause of death listed on the death certificate is often inaccurate. Many death certificates are filled out by doctors who have not been treating the patient and who may have fairly little information on which to base their decision on the cause of death. Also, many people when they die have multiple potentially fatal conditions, so that it can be difficult to decide which one was really responsible for the fatal outcome. So whereas the fact that someone has died is generally measured with high accuracy, the cause of death is somewhat error prone, especially for some causes of death.
  53. Another proportion often used in epidemiology to measure disease frequency is called prevalence (and, mercifully, only that). Prevalence is the proportion of a population at risk that is affected at a given time, which could be at a given moment (which is called β€œpoint prevalence”) or over a period of time (β€œperiod prevalence”). The distinction between the two is often unclear, however, and usually one just says β€œprevalence”. A critical distinction between cumulative incidence and prevalence is that incidence counts only newly occurring cases, whereas prevalence counts all cases that exist at the moment (or for β€œperiod prevalence”, at any time during the period).
  54. Let’s estimate the prevalence in our example population. Suppose at a point in time, the situation is as shown in the slide – one person has died, one new case has just occurred, and five members of the population have developed the disease and continue to live with it.
  55. Now, a new case occurs, and an existing case dies.
  56. In the next month, two new cases occur, and no one dies.
  57. Two more new cases, one more death.
  58. So looking at the population at the present month, what is the prevalence? First, how many people in the population have the disease? Second, how large is the eligible population (the people eligible to have the disease, which for the moment we are assuming could have happened to anyone – women, men, children)? Nine people have the disease at present, and since the cases who died are not in the population any longer, the population at risk has 197 people. So the prevalence is 9/197, which of course we can write as 0.046, 4.6%, or 46/1,000, or any numerically equivalent expression. Notice that in contrast to incidence, the population at risk for prevalence does include the people living with the disease since they are at risk to have the disease.
  59. Let’s consider several fine points. First, who comprises the population at risk? What about a disease that occurs only in women or only in men? What is the population at risk for developing or having prostate cancer? Clearly, men. What about the population at risk for developing breast cancer? Women – and men, though the occurrence of breast cancer is so much less frequent in men that we would generally want to compute separate measures of breast cancer for women and men, rather than an average for both sexes combined. What about endometrial cancer? Clearly women, but if they have had a hysterectomy, then they are not at risk of this disease. So ideally we would use in our denominator for incidence or prevalence only women with a uterus. Of course, we often don’t know how many women in a population have had a hysterectomy. Here, the third consideration we listed in the beginning – availability of data – may force us to include women in the denominator even if they have had a hysterectomy and are no longer biologically β€œat risk”. The treatment of women who have had a hysterectomy in the course of being treated for endometrial cancer depends on the study question and whether we can know this information.
  60. What about differences in genetic susceptibility. After all, the differences we just discussed for women and men were certainly genetically based What do we do about people who due to other aspects of their genetic make-up are not in fact at risk to develop the disease? In principle we would want to omit them from the denominator. That is what we do, after all, when we omit women from the denominator for prostate cancer or when we calculate separate breast cancer incidences for women and men. But most of the time we do not have information on genetic susceptibility, either in terms of being β€œat risk” or β€œnot at risk” or in terms of different levels of risk. So the β€œavailability of data” consideration generally forces us to include all people whom we believe might be susceptible in the denominator.
  61. Here is another fine point. How do we measure time when we construct an incidence rate? Are 10 people followed for 10 years always equivalent to 100 people followed for 1 year? Not necessarily. It is possible that the level of risk changes during the time a person is being followed, for example, because the person is getting older or becoming increasingly susceptible. If we know that people with different lengths of follow-up are not equivalent, then we would not want to simply average their disease experience together. Instead, we would analyze the incidence separately for each duration of follow-up. Also, if the incidence is changing over calendar time, then rather than estimate an overall incidence rate (essentially, an average), we might prefer to estimate an incidence rate for each part of the time period.
  62. Another fine point – or again, maybe not such a fine point – is that we must remember to state the units in which we are measuring time and the location of the decimal point, unless they are clear from the context. After all, if we just say β€œ120 per 100,000”, that could mean 120 per 100,000 person-years (as it often would). But we could write the same incidence rate as β€œ10 per 100,000 person-months”, and few people would realize that by 10 per 100,000 (months) we meant the same rate as 120 per 100,000 (years). There are serious hazards from a failure to specify units, as the following slide illustrates.
  63. β€œYou can never, never take anything for granted.” That was the lesson drawn by Noel Hinners, vice president for flight systems at Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Denver, Colorado concerning the loss of the Martian Climate Orbiter due to the Lockheed Martin spacecraft team’s reporting measurements in English units, whereas the orbiter’s navigation team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California assumed the measurements were in metric units. Here, a failure to specify the units of some measurements led to the loss of a multi-billion dollar spacecraft. So please, always specify the units in which you are expressing a measurement!
  64. In order for a case to exist, it must first occur. So in any population there must be some relation between incidence and prevalence. In general, the greater the incidence, the greater the prevalence. However, the prevalence also depends on the duration of the disease, since cures, deaths, and out-migration all remove existing cases from the population. In addition, existing cases may migrate into the population, so it is possible for prevalence to increase even without an increase in incidence. A traditional diagram (I’ve used one for two decades, and Leon Gordis has one in his textbook) for illustrating the relation among incidence, prevalence, mortality, cure, and migration is a bathtub. However, the bathtub analogy is deficient in that the rate of flow at the faucet (representing incidence) is not proportional to the (unseen) size of the reservoir (representing the population at risk).
  65. My current physical analogy for the relation of incidence and prevalence is the popcorn maker. The unpopped kernels placed in the cooker are the β€œpopulation at risk”. An event (case) is the popping of a kernel. A popped kernel still in the cooker is a prevalent (existing) case. And kernels removed from the cooker represent deaths, cures, and outmigration (inmigration of cases would be represented by adding popped kernels to the cooker – which you might do if it were the end of the night and you wanted to empty and clean one of two cookers, keeping the other one available for late-comers). [I’m grateful to Linda Robertson for correcting my spelling of β€œkernel”!]
  66. Turning up the heat increases the β€œincidence”. Opening the plastic door that holds the popcorn inside decreases β€œprevalence”. Kernels that do not have enough moisture in them to pop are β€œnot susceptible”. Kernels in which steam is building up but which have not yet popped are at very high risk (or, if you define the event as the vaporization of the moisture in the kernel, such kernels are in a presymptomatic stage).
  67. As mentioned last week, populations are diverse (different from each other) and heterogeneous (different within themselves). Yet we typically want to make comparisons across populations. Some of the differences between populations are of interest to us, but others are actually a distraction. For example, if we want to compare the death rates across several populations, differences in their age structure (which strongly influences death rates) could well interfere with the objective of our comparison. Developing countries, for example, tend to have much younger age distributions than countries that have been industrialized for many years. Because of their different age distributions, the death rate for a developing country may well be lower than that for an industrialized country, even if people of the same age have a lower death rate in the industrialized country. Therefore, when there are differences between populations that may distort or cloud our comparison of interest, we often adjust that comparison to take account of the population differences that are not of interest at the moment. One method of doing this, widely used for presenting death rates, is called standardization. The strategy for standardization is basically straightforward: divide each population into subgroups defined by the factor(s) to be adjusted for. Estimate the death rate separately for each subgroup. Then take a weighted average across all of the subgroups. The key is to use the same set of weights for each population.
  68. For the standardization to be straightforward, however, one does need to remember how weighted averages work. Here is a familiar example. Suppose you want to compare the fuel efficiency of two cars. Of course, any car will get better fuel efficiency in Interstate driving (e.g., 0.050 LpK) than other driving (e.g., 0.100 LpK). So if we want to compare fuel efficiency from information on kilometers driven and fuel consumed, we would make separate comparisons for Interstate and non-Interstate driving. If we wanted to have a single number for each car, we could construct a weighted average of liters of petrol per kilometer driven (LpK) for each type of driving. [I used to use an example based on miles per gallon, but an EPID600 student pointed out to me that my algebra was incorrect, so I had to change to gallons per mile. Since we’re now a school of global public health, I thought I should switch to metric units. That is the reason the example uses liters (L) of petrol per kilometer (Km).] So to summarize fuel efficiency by a single number for each vehicle, we construct a weighted average that combines fuel consumption in highway driving with fuel consumption in city driving.
  69. Juan drives a Suburu 800 km on Interstate highways and 200 km on other roads. His car uses 0.050 LpK on Interstates and 0.100 LpK on other roads, using a total of 60 liters of petrol on the 1000 km trip, an average of 0.060 LpK (60 L / 1000 km). His overall LpK of 0.060 can be expressed as a weighted average: (800/1000) x 0.050 LpK + (200/1000) x 0.100 LpK = 0.80 x 0.050 LpK + 0.20 x 0.100LpK = 0.060 LpK In fact, any number can be regarded as a weighted average. In this case we weight each type of fuel efficiency by the proportion of that type of driving.
  70. Shizu’s overall fuel efficiency is also a weighted average, but in this case she drove a larger proportion of her trip on non-Interstate roads. Shizu drives her Mazda for 200 km on Interstate and 800 km on other roads. She uses 0.045 LpK in Interstate driving and 0.080 LpK on non-Interstate. So her total fuel consumption is 73 liters, or 0.073 LpK. In spite of the fact that her car was more efficient in Interstate driving and also in non-Interstate driving, Shizu used more fuel for the same trip. To understand how this can be, let’s express Shizu’s overall LpK as a weighted average: (200/1,000) x 0.045 LpK + (800/1,000) x 0.080 LpK = 0.20 x 0.045 LpK + 0.80 x 0.080 LpK =0.073 LpK This expression makes clear that although the numbers for LpK are smaller for Shizu’s Mazda, she is driving more of her distance at her lower fuel efficiency.
  71. When we go to compare their fuel efficiency, we have a problem. The overall LpK figure for Juan reflects both the fuel efficiency of his car but also the fact that he drove a larger proportion of his trip on Interstates than did Shizu.
  72. In this table, the distances driven have been replaced by the percentage distributions for the total kilometers driven by each driver. Juan’s overall LpK (060) reflects the fact that he made 80% of his trip was on Interestates. Shizu’s 0.073 LpK, in turn, reflects the fact that she drove only 20% of her trip on Interstates. So compared to Juan, her car looks less favorable than it should, because although her fuel efficiency is better both on Interstates and on other roads, she drove most of her trip at her relatively worse fuel efficiency, whereas Juan drove most of his trip at his relative better fuel efficiency.
  73. If we want to make a β€œfair” comparison, or a comparison that β€œstandardizes” for the type of driving, we would recompute the weighted averages by using the same set of weights for both cars. In the above table I chose 60% Interstate, 40% non-Interstate. These β€œstandardized” summaries result in a different comparison. Other weights could have been chosen. Which comparison is correct? Both are correct. The first one (β€œTotal”) shows what really happened, but that was influenced by trip composition. The second comparison (β€œStandardized”) is hypothetical, but it removes the influence of trip composition. Each answers a different question.
  74. This slide illustrates the computation of the standardized average liters per kilometer. It is clear that the choice of weights will affect the comparison, even if we use the same weights for both cars. The higher the weight for highway driving, the more the overall average will move in favor of Shizu’s Mazda. The higher the weight for city driving, the more the overall average will shift in favor of Juan’s Suburu. Which weights should one use? As with other decisions about measures, the choice depends on our objective, our conceptual understanding of the phenomenon, and the availability of data. Convention also has a role. If we want to compare our results to those that others have published, using the same set of weights (often referred to as the β€œstandard population”) as did the other studies improves the comparability across studies. If the data are sparse, we may want to avoid assigning large weights to imprecise estimates. This issue and related topics are covered in standard textbooks as well as in the Evolving Text.
  75. And finally, to remind us that learning was fun, here are a few more β€œfamous last words”. β€œI'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper.” (attributed to Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in the classic epic of the U.S. Civil War, β€œGone with the Wind”).
  76. Have a good week, Vic