Arsenic exposure from drinking water,
comprise a series of epidemiological calculations and short answer questions in addition to questions related to an epidemiological article.
Epidemiology
The questions in Section 1 relate to the article:
Argos M et al. Arsenic exposure from drinking water, and all-cause and chronic-disease mortalities in Bangladesh (HEALS): a prospective cohort study. The Lancet 2010; 376:252- 258.
Q1. What was the aim of this study? (1 mark)
Q2. Identify the criteria for selection into the study and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these criteria. (5 marks)
Q3. a) Were the authors successful at minimising loss-to-follow-up? Provide data to support your answer. (3 marks)
Q4. What was the primary outcome of the study and how was it ascertained? (2 marks)
Q5. Comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the method of ascertainment of the outcome? (4 marks)
Q6. a) What were the exposure variables and how were they defined? (3 marks)
Q7. Is there evidence that BMI is a confounder of the relationship between arsenic exposure and mortality? (2 marks)
Q8. On page 255, 3rd paragraph, the authors report the finding that “a one-quartile increase in arsenic concentration in well water was associated with a 15% increase in all-cause mortality (95% CI 1.05-1.26)”. Explain in your own words the interpretation of this 95% CI. (2 marks)
Q9. On page 255, 5th paragraph, the authors report the finding that “multivariate-adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) for comparison of high baseline exposure to low baseline exposure was 1.46 (95% CI 1.14-1.86) for deaths occurring after follow up 1”. Explain in your own words the interpretation of the HR. (3 marks)
Q10. Did the authors observe a change in risk of death associated with changes in arsenic concentration in urine over time? Refer to or provide data to support your answer.
(2 marks)
Q11. What is the interpretation of the attributable proportion based upon well water for chronic-disease mortality of 24%? (2 marks)
Q12. Imagine you are designing a RCT to evaluate the impact on urine arsenic of an intervention to reduce arsenic exposure in well water. The intervention is the one–off addition of a chemical to remove arsenic in the water. The follow up will be 6 months.
Q13. An outbreak of gastroenteritis that appears to be related to the consumption of fast food has recently occurred in Mandurah. A case-control study was undertaken and the following results found.
Food item Cases (n= 19) Controls (n=17)
Crumbed chicken 14 11
Any chicken 16 16
Egg rolls 14 3
Fried rice 14 9
Q14. In a matched cohort study of oral contraceptive (OC) use and breast cancer, where the exposed: non-exposed ratio was 1:1, the matched-pair findings were as follows.
No history of OC use
Breast cancer No breast cancer
Previous OC use Breast cancer 12 102
No breast cancer
32
87
Q15. A new screening test for HIV in blood products was administered to 700 people with clinically proven HIV and to 900 people without HIV. The screening test was positive for 670 of the proven HIV cases and 150 of the people without HIV.
Q16. A number of employees at a factory in WA have recently been diagnosed with cancer and the union has demanded an investigation into whether exposure to the factory working environment is placing their members at increased risk of cancer. You are asked to determine whether an increased risk exists and if so provide an estimate of the degree that factory workers are at risk compared with the community.
A total of 16 cases of the cancer have been diagnosed in factory workers over the last 10 years. You collect the following data from those who have had a cancer diagnosis while working at the factory over this time frame.
AGE GROUP in years PERSON YEARS AT RISK Cases
15-19 22.2 0
20-24 325.8 0
25-29 440.1 1
30-34 505.7 2
35-39 425.1 3
40-44 322.8 4
45-49 243.8 3
50-54 211.7 2
55-59 129.6 0
60-64 79.8 1
65-69 5.0 0
70-74 3.0 0
TOTAL 2714.4 16
Recent research has reported that the incident rate of the cancer in the WA population is 3330 per 100,000 person-years, with an age distribution in the community as follows:
AGE GROUP in years Age-specific IR in Western Australia (per 100,000PY)
15-19 0.283
20-24 1.646
25-29 11.770
30-34 44.110
35-39 103.474
40-44 196.288
45-49 335.884
50-54 413.418
55-59 503.016
60-64 569.476
65-69 565.352
70-74 585.785
Using the above information above, determine the age-standardised rate ratio (show all working) for cancer in the factory workers compared with the community and describe (in lay terms) what this result means. (5 marks)
SAMPLE SOLUTION
The study aimed at prospectively assessing whether chronic and recent changes in arsenic exposure can lead to all-cause and chronic disease mortalities within the population of Bangladesh.
#2
Convenient sampling and longitudinal studies were employed as selection criteria. Convenient sampling was employed in selecting trained physician who interviewed and clinically assessed participants. This method of sampling enables researchers to develop theories quickly (Lamb, 2013). Results obtained from studies employing this form of sampling may be biased due to issues of personal prejudice on the part of researchers. Data may also be misinterpreted, particularly when researchers use the information from the research to prove untrue facts. Drawing complete conclusions from the results of study that is based on convenient sampling can be difficult.
Longitudinal study was employed in selecting participants for the study. Longitudinal studies help in the determination of patterns since they involve using and gathering data from long periods (Lamb, 2013). They also permit the learning of cause and effect associations. Besides, data gathered over extended periods allows for accuracy and precision of results. As such, longitudinal studies are high in terms of validity. On the contrary, these studies take long periods and require large samples of study.
#3
#4
The study’s primary outcome was that chronic arsenic exposure via drinking water leads to an increase in the rate of mortality. Furthermore, researchers identified that recent changes is exposure did not have a significant impact on the mortality rate. This outcome was ascertained using the cox proportional hazard model.
#5
Lamb (2013) states that the key weakness associated with the use of cox proportional hazard model is that this framework does not estimate the baseline hazard. As such, the researchers cannot manage to make any comment about the hazard or any aspect relating to it such as elasticity or effects. Its principal strength lies in the fact that the researcher cannot make error during the specification of baseline hazard.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Phasellus hendrerit. Pellentesque aliquet nibh nec urna. In nisi neque, aliquet vel, dapibus id, mattis vel, nisi. Sed pretium, ligula sollicitudin laoreet viverra, tortor libero sodales leo, eget blandit nunc tortor eu nibh. Nullam mollis. Ut justo. Suspendisse potenti.
Sed egestas, ante et vulputate volutpat, eros pede semper est, vitae luctus metus libero eu augue. Morbi purus libero, faucibus adipiscing, commodo quis, gravida id, est. Sed lectus. Praesent elementum hendrerit tortor. Sed semper lorem at felis. Vestibulum volutpat, lacus a ultrices sagittis, mi neque euismod dui, eu pulvinar nunc sapien ornare nisl. Phasellus pede arcu, dapibus eu, fermentum et, dapibus sed, urna.
Morbi interdum mollis sapien. Sed ac risus. Phasellus lacinia, magna a ullamcorper laoreet, lectus arcu pulvinar risus, vitae facilisis libero dolor a purus. Sed vel lacus. Mauris nibh felis, adipiscing varius, adipiscing in, lacinia vel, tellus. Suspendisse ac urna. Etiam pellentesque mauris ut lectus. Nunc tellus ante, mattis eget, gravida vitae, ultricies ac, leo. Integer leo pede, ornare a, lacinia eu, vulputate vel, nisl.
Suspendisse mauris. Fusce accumsan mollis eros. Pellentesque a diam sit amet mi ullamcorper vehicula. Integer adipiscing risus a sem. Nullam quis massa sit amet nibh viverra malesuada. Nunc sem lacus, accumsan quis, faucibus non, congue vel, arcu. Ut scelerisque hendrerit tellus. Integer sagittis. Vivamus a mauris eget arcu gravida tristique. Nunc iaculis mi in ante. Vivamus imperdiet nibh feugiat est.
Ut convallis, sem sit amet interdum consectetuer, odio augue aliquam leo, nec dapibus tortor nibh sed augue. Integer eu magna sit amet metus fermentum posuere. Morbi sit amet nulla sed dolor elementum imperdiet. Quisque fermentum. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis xdis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Pellentesque adipiscing eros ut libero. Ut condimentum mi vel tellus. Suspendisse laoreet. Fusce ut est sed dolor gravida convallis. Morbi vitae ante. Vivamus ultrices luctus nunc. Suspendisse et dolor. Etiam dignissim. Proin malesuada adipiscing lacus. Donec metus. Curabitur gravida