Assessment Task-2 (50%)
HEAPH6002: Epidemiology
Assessment Task-2 (50%)
Marking Rubric
Criteria Ratings Max marks
(100)
Article reference High Distinction
(A+)
(81-100%) Distinction
(A)
(71-80%) Credit
(B)
(61-70%) Pass
(C)
(50-60%) Fail
(F)
(0-49%) STROBE Statement-Checklist 1 Completion of 18-22 items correctly in the checklist
(4.1-5.0) Completion of 15-17 items correctly in the checklist
(3.6-4.0) Completion of 13-14 items correctly in the checklist
(3.1-3.5) Completion of 11-12 items correctly in the checklist
(2.5-3.0) Completion of 10 items or less correctly in the checklist
(0-2.4) 5
2 Completion of 18-22 items correctly in the checklist
(4.1-5.0) Completion of 15-17 items correctly in the checklist
(3.6-4.0) Completion of 13-14 items correctly in the checklist
(3.1-3.5) Completion of 11-12 items correctly in the checklist
(2.5-3.0) Completion of 10 items or less correctly in the checklist
(0-2.4) 5
Research question 1 Correct identification of all 5 components of PICOT
(4.1-5.0) Correct identification of 4 components of PICOT
(3.6-4.0) Correct identification of 3 components of PICOT
(3.1-3.5) Correct identification of 2 components of PICOT
(2.5-3.0) Correct identification of 1 or no components of PICOT
(0-2.4) 5
2 Correct identification of all 5 components of PICOT
(4.1-5.0) Correct identification of 4 components of PICOT
(3.6-4.0) Correct identification of 3 components of PICOT
(3.1-3.5) Correct identification of 2 components of PICOT
(2.5-3.0) Correct identification of 1 or no components of PICOT
(0-2.4) 5
Study design 1 Excellent justification on the selection of study design by comparing with other study designs
(4.1-5.0) Very good justification on the selection of study design provided, but without comparing other study designs
(3.6-4.0) Good justification on the selection of study design provided
(3.1-3.5) Satisfactory justification on the selection of study design provided
(2.5-3.0) No or incorrect or poor justification provided
(0-2.4) 5
2 Excellent justification on the selection of study design by comparing with other study designs
(4.1-5.0) Very good justification on the selection of study design provided, but without comparing other study designs
(3.6-4.0) Good justification on the selection of study design provided
(3.1-3.5) Satisfactory justification on the selection of study design provided
(2.5-3.0) No or incorrect or poor justification provided
(0-2.4) 5
Identification of biases 1 Correct identification and comprehensive description of 5 or more potential biases
Correct explanation of addressing the relevant biases
Explanations on implications show excellent understanding of the biases
(12.1-15.0) Correct identification and comprehensive description of 4 potential biases
Correct explanation of addressing the relevant biases
Explanations on implications show very good understanding of the biases
(10.6-12.0) Correct identification and comprehensive description of 3 potential biases
Correct explanation of addressing the relevant biases
Explanations on implications show good understanding of the biases
(9.1-10.5) Correct identification and comprehensive description of 2 potential biases
Incomplete explanation of addressing the relevant biases
Explanations on implications show satisfactory understanding of the biases
(7.5-9.0) Correct identification and comprehensive description of 1 potential bias, or, incorrect identification of biases
Incorrect explanation of addressing the relevant biases
Incorrect explanations on implications show poor understanding of the biases
(0-7.4) 15
2 Correct identification and comprehensive description of 5 or more potential biases
Correct explanation of addressing the relevant biases
Explanations on implications show excellent understanding of the biases
(12.1-15.0) Correct identification and comprehensive description of 4 potential biases
Correct explanation of addressing the relevant biases
Explanations on implications show very good understanding of the biases
(10.6-12.0) Correct identification and comprehensive description of 3 potential biases
Correct explanation of addressing the relevant biases
Explanations on implications show good understanding of the biases
(9.1-10.5) Correct identification and comprehensive description of 2 potential biases
Incomplete explanation of addressing the relevant biases
Explanations on implications show satisfactory understanding of the biases
(7.5-9.0) Correct identification and comprehensive description of 1 potential bias, or, incorrect identification of biases
Incorrect explanation of addressing the relevant biases
Incorrect explanations on implications show poor understanding of the biases
(0-7.4) 15
Interpretation of results 1 Correct explanation of 5 or more associations
(4.1-5.0) Correct explanation of 4 associations
(3.6-4.0) Correct explanation of 3 associations
(3.1-3.5) Correct explanation of 2 associations
(2.5-3.0) Correct explanation of 1 association or incorrect explanation
(0-2.4) 5
2 Correct explanation of 5 or more associations
(4.1-5.0) Correct explanation of 4 associations
(3.6-4.0) Correct explanation of 3 associations
(3.1-3.5) Correct explanation of 2 associations
(2.5-3.0) Correct explanation of 1 association or incorrect explanation
(0-2.4) 5
Temporal relationship 1 Correct explanation of 5 or more key results showing excellent understanding of the concept
(4.1-5.0) Correct explanation of 4 key results showing very good understanding of the concept
(3.6-4.0) Correct explanation of 3 key results showing good understanding of the concept
(3.1-3.5) Correct explanation of 2 key results showing good understanding of the concept
(2.5-3.0) Correct explanation of 1 key result or incorrect explanation showing poor understanding of the concept
(0-2.4) 5
2 Correct explanation of 5 or more key results showing excellent understanding of the concept
(4.1-5.0) Correct explanation of 4 key results showing very good understanding of the concept
(3.6-4.0) Correct explanation of 3 key results showing good understanding of the concept
(3.1-3.5) Correct explanation of 2 key results showing good understanding of the concept
(2.5-3.0) Correct explanation of 1 key result or incorrect explanation showing poor understanding of the concept
(0-2.4) 5
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist 1 Completion of 8-9 items correctly in the checklist
Excellent explanation of choice
(4.1-5.0) Completion of 6-7 items correctly in the checklist
Very good explanation of choice
(3.6-4.0) Completion of all 5 items correctly in the checklist
Good explanation of choice
(3.1-3.5) Completion of 4 items correctly in the checklist
Satisfactory explanation of choice
(2.5-3.0) Completion of 3 items or less correctly in the checklist
Poor or incorrect explanation
(0-2.4) 5
2 Completion of 8-9 items correctly in the checklist
Excellent explanation of choice
(4.1-5.0) Completion of 6-7 items correctly in the checklist
Very good explanation of choice
(3.6-4.0) Completion of all 5 items correctly in the checklist
Good explanation of choice
(3.1-3.5) Completion of 4 items correctly in the checklist
Satisfactory explanation of choice
(2.5-3.0) Completion of 3 items or less correctly in the checklist
Poor or incorrect explanation
(0-2.4) 5
Referencing APA 6 style was consistently and correctly used for citations and reference list all the time
(4.1-5.0) APA 6 style was consistently and correctly used for citations and reference list most of the time
(3.6-4.0) APA 6 style was consistently and correctly used for citations and reference list some of the time
(2.5-3.5) No or Incorrect style for citations and reference list
(0-2.4) 5
Written expression and presentation Writing was fluent, and there were minimal spelling or grammatical errors
Correct template was used
(4.1-5.0) Writing was mostly fluent, and there were few spelling or grammatical errors
Correct template was used
(3.6-4.0) Writing was not always fluent and there were some spelling, typing or grammatical errors
Correct template was used
(3.1-3.5) Writing may not be fluent and there were several spelling, typing or grammatical errors
Correct template was used
(2.5-3.0) Writing was not fluent and there were many spelling, typing or grammatical errors
Incorrect template was used
(0-2.4) 5
Purpose:
To assess the knowledge on epidemiological approach for investigating a disease or health outcome
To determine the skills to calculate basic epidemiological measures
To assess the skills to evaluate biases involved in an epidemiological study
To evaluate the ability of the students to apply their knowledge and skills to criticize an epidemiological study
Total word count:
3000 words (10%)
Description:
1.Review the following two articles:
a)Rahman, M. A., Hoque, N., Alif, S. M., Salehin, M., Islam, S. M. S., Banik, B., . . . Cross, W. (2020). Factors associated with psychological distress, fear and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. Global Health, 16(1), 95. doi:10.1186/s12992-020-00624-w
b)Cai, Q., Feng, H., Huang, J., Wang, M., Wang, Q., Lu, X., . . . Liu, Y. (2020). The mental health of frontline and non-frontline medical workers during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: A case-control study. J Affect Disord, 275, 210-215. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.031
2.Then follow the assessment task-2 template to complete your assessment. The task includes the following components individually for each of your two selected articles:
A.STROBE Statement-Checklist:Complete this checklist based on the selected articles.
B.Research question:Outline the research question in the structured PICOT format. (100-150 words)
C.Study design:Was the selected study design appropriate to answer the research question? Justify your answer. (500-600 words)
D.Identification of biases:Identify at least 5 biases from each selected two studies and explain those. Explain whether those biases were addressed in the studies and the potential implications on the findings presented. (1000-1100 words)
E.Interpretation of results:Explain at least 5 key findings based on the analyses from the logistic regression (odds ratio/relative risk, adjusted odds ratio/relative risk and 95% confidence intervals). (500-600 words)
F.Temporal relationship:Using the specific Hills criteria for causation, explain at least the 5 key findings of associations from the selected studies. (500-600 words)
G.JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist:Assume that you intend to conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses to examine the association on the topic area of your interest in the selected studies.
i.Use the relevant JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist to decide inclusion or exclusion.
ii.Explain the reasons for your choice. (300-400 words)
Further instructions:
You must use the supplied template for your assessment.
Follow the word counts for each question as indicated
Total word count is 3,000 (10%) words excluding the words of this template, which is approximately 2364 words
Expand the explanation boxes as needed in the template.
You must provide in-text references, which must be listed at the end of the template following APA7 reference style.
Marking criteria:
Please, follow the marking rubric for Assessment Task 2.
Feedback:
Your assessment will be assessed by the tutor and feedback will be provided via Turnitin within two weeks of the submission due dates.
Preparation:
Students should devote at least 24 hours for this assessment.
Submission details:
Please submit your assessment via Turnitin. Please, check the due date for submission.
ASSESSMENT TASK-2
CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES
Instructions
You must use this template for your assessment
Follow the word counts as indicated
This template contains approximately 1194 words
Expand the explanation boxes as needed
You must provide in-text references, which needs to be listed at the end of this template following APA6 reference style
Assessment must be submitted at TurnitInSelected articles for critical appraisal
Article-1: Rahman, M. A., Hoque, N., Alif, S. M., Salehin, M., Islam, S. M. S., Banik, B., . . . Cross, W. (2020). Factors associated with psychological distress, fear and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. Global Health, 16(1), 95. doi:10.1186/s12992-020-00624-w
Article-2: Cai, Q., Feng, H., Huang, J., Wang, M., Wang, Q., Lu, X., . . . Liu, Y. (2020). The mental health of frontline and non-frontline medical workers during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: A case-control study. J Affect Disord, 275, 210-215. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.031
STROBE Statement-Checklist
Complete the checklist of items using the selected article-1Item No. Recommendation Page No. Relevant text from the manuscript
Title and abstract1 (a) Indicate the studys design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract (b) Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found Introduction
Background/rationale2 Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported Objectives 3 State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses Methods
Study design 4 Present key elements of study design early in the paper Setting 5 Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection Participants 6 (a) Cohort studyGive the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants. Describe methods of follow-up
Case-control studyGive the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of case ascertainment and control selection. Give the rationale for the choice of cases and controls
Cross-sectional studyGive the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants (b) Cohort studyFor matched studies, give matching criteria and number of exposed and unexposed
Case-control studyFor matched studies, give matching criteria and the number of controls per case Variables 7 Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable Data sources/ measurement8* For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group Bias 9 Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias Study size 10 Explain how the study size was arrived at Quantitative variables11 Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why Statistical methods12 (a) Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding (b) Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions (c) Explain how missing data were addressed (d) Cohort studyIf applicable, explain how loss to follow-up was addressed
Case-control studyIf applicable, explain how matching of cases and controls was addressed
Cross-sectional studyIf applicable, describe analytical methods taking account of sampling strategy (e) Describe any sensitivity analyses Results Participants13*(a) Report numbers of individuals at each stage of studyeg numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and analysed (b) Give reasons for non-participation at each stage (c) Consider use of a flow diagramDescriptive data14*(a) Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders (b) Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest (c) Cohort studySummarise follow-up time (eg, average and total amount) Outcome data 15*Cohort studyReport numbers of outcome events or summary measures over time Case-control studyReport numbers in each exposure category, or summary measures of exposure Cross-sectional studyReport numbers of outcome events or summary measures Main results 16 (a) Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (eg, 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included (b) Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized (c) If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time periodOther analyses 17 Report other analyses doneeg analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses DiscussionKey results 18 Summarise key results with reference to study objectives Limitations 19 Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias Interpretation 20 Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence Generalisability 21 Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results Other information Funding 22 Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based *Give information exposed and unexposed groups in cross-sectional studies
Complete the checklist of items using the selected article-2Item No. Recommendation Page No. Relevant text from the manuscript
Title and abstract 1 (a) Indicate the studys design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract (b) Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found Introduction Background/rationale 2 Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported Objectives 3 State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses Methods Study design 4 Present key elements of study design early in the paper Setting 5 Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection Participants 6 (a) Cohort studyGive the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants. Describe methods of follow-up
Case-control studyGive the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of case ascertainment and control selection. Give the rationale for the choice of cases and controls
Cross-sectional studyGive the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants (b) Cohort studyFor matched studies, give matching criteria and number of exposed and unexposed
Case-control studyFor matched studies, give matching criteria and the number of controls per case Variables 7 Clearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable Data sources/ measurement 8* For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group Bias 9 Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias Study size 10 Explain how the study size was arrived at Quantitative variables 11 Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why Statistical methods 12 (a) Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding (b) Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions (c) Explain how missing data were addressed (d) Cohort studyIf applicable, explain how loss to follow-up was addressed
Case-control studyIf applicable, explain how matching of cases and controls was addressed
Cross-sectional studyIf applicable, describe analytical methods taking account of sampling strategy (e) Describe any sensitivity analyses Results Participants 13* (a) Report numbers of individuals at each stage of studyeg numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and analysed (b) Give reasons for non-participation at each stage (c) Consider use of a flow diagram Descriptive data 14* (a) Give characteristics of study participants (eg demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential confounders (b) Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest (c) Cohort studySummarise follow-up time (eg, average and total amount) Outcome data 15* Cohort studyReport numbers of outcome events or summary measures over time Case-control studyReport numbers in each exposure category, or summary measures of exposure Cross-sectional studyReport numbers of outcome events or summary measures Main results 16 (a) Give unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (eg, 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included (b) Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized (c) If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time periodOther analyses 17 Report other analyses doneeg analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses Discussion Key results 18 Summarise key results with reference to study objectives Limitations 19 Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias Interpretation 20 Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence Generalisability 21 Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results Other information Funding 22 Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based *Give information for cases and controls in case-control studies
Research question
Article-1: Outline the research question in the structured PICOT format (50-75 words)
P I C O T Article-2: Outline the research question in the structured PICOT format (50-75 words)
P I C O T C. Study design
Article-1: Was the selected study design appropriate to answer the research question? Provide justification for your answer. (250-300 words)
Article-2: Was the selected study design appropriate to answer the research question? Provide justification for your answer. (250-300 words)
Identification of biases
Article-1: (a) Identify at least 5 biases and explain those. (b) Explain whether those biases were addressed in the studies. (c) Whats the potential implications on the findings presented? (500-550 words)
Article-2: (a) Identify at least 5 biases and explain those. (b) Explain whether those biases were addressed in the studies. (c) Whats the potential implications on the findings presented? (500-550 words)
Interpretation of results
Article-1: Explain at least 5 key findings based on the analyses from the logistic regression (odds ratio/relative risk, adjusted odds ratio/relative risk and 95% confidence intervals). (250-300 words)
Article-2: Explain at least 5 key findings based on the analyses from the logistic regression (odds ratio/relative risk, adjusted odds ratio/relative risk and 95% confidence intervals). (250-300 words)
Temporal relationshipArticle-1: Using the specific Hills criteria for causation, explain at least the 5 key findings of associations from the selected study (250-300 words)
Article-2: Using the specific Hills criteria for causation, explain at least the 5 key findings of associations from the selected study (250-300 words)
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist
Assume that you intend to conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses to examine the association on the topic area of your interest in the selected studies.
Use the relevant JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist to make your decision on inclusion or exclusion.
Article-1: Explain the reasons for your choice. (100-150 words)
Article-2: Explain the reasons for your choice. (100-150 words)
Article-1: Analytical cross-sectional study
Include your selected article reference no here: Yes No Unclear Not applicable
Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?
Were confounding factors identified?
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
Overall appraisal Include
Exclude Seek further info Comments (Explain the reasons for your choice) Article-2: Case-control study
Include your selected article reference no here: Yes No Unclear Not applicable
Were the groups comparable other than the presence of disease in cases or the absence of disease in controls?
Were cases and controls matched appropriately?
Were the same criteria used for identification of cases and controls?
Was exposure measured in a standard, valid and reliable way?
Was exposure measured in the same way for cases and controls?
Were confounding factors identified?
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
Were outcomes assessed in a standard, valid and reliable way for cases and controls?
Was the exposure period of interest long enough to be meaningful?
Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
Overall appraisal Include
Exclude Seek further info Comments (Explain the reasons for your choice) Reference list
