Get Answer: Carefully Read Article Question Guide

This question tests key academic concepts commonly covered in coursework.

What This Question Is About

This question relates to carefully read article and requires a structured academic response.

How to Approach This Question

Start by identifying the main issue, then apply relevant academic frameworks.

Key Explanation

This topic involves carefully read article. A strong answer should include explanation, application, and examples.

Original Question

Carefully read Article #2: McCurdy, S.A., Portillo-Silva, C., Chen, Y., Sipan, C.L., Bang, H., and Emery, K.W. (2020). Risk for coccidioidomycosis among Hispanic farm workers, California, USA, 2018. Emerging Infectious Diseases: 26(7), 1431-1437. (I usually have to read an article of this type at least twice to fully understand it.) Then answer the following questions What is/are the purpose(s), objective(s), or aim(s) of this study? (2 points) What was the population of interest in this study? (2 points) Was the unit of analysis on the group or individual level? (1 point) How many (units) were included in each of the two comparison groups and the total sample for the final analyses? (3 points) Choose one. Was the outcome in each individual identified: (1 point) At the same time as the exposure. Before the exposure. After the exposure. What was the study design? Describe the characteristics of this study which makes it that study design. In other words, even if the type of study design was never mentioned by the authors, how could you tell that it is this design? (4 points) Take a look at Table 2. What was the purpose of this table? (2 points) Staying on Table 2: Please cite any risk factor(s) that had definite positive and statistically significant association(s) with the outcome in this study. Cite the risk factor(s), odds ratio(s) and confidence interval(s). (3 points) Which potential risk factor(s) bordered on being positive and statistically significant association(s) with the outcome? Cite the risk factor(s), odds ratio(s) and confidence interval(s). (6 points) Finally, which protective factor(s) had definite negative and statistically significant association(s) with the outcome. Again, cite the protective factor(s), odds ratio(s) and confidence interval(s). (3 points) What sort of error could an insufficient sample size introduce into the study? What effect(s) would this error have on the confidence interval? (3 points) From where did they recruit their sample? (1 point) Describe the sample in terms of person, place and time. (4 points) Considering how people were recruited, could selection bias have occurred in this study? If so, explain one of the ways in which this could have happened and how this could bias the composition of the whole sample or one of the comparison groups. (4 points) What was the outcome? (1 point) Look up this disease (if necessary) and describe all of the following. (6 points): The type of biological agent that is a cause of the disease (virus, bacterium, protozoa, fungi, helminth, etc.) and its name The geographical environment in which it occurs The substance in which it occurs The way in which it gets into a human body. Two of the leading symptoms Whether it can ever be fatal. What criteria did they use to decide if a person had the outcome or not? In explain what distinguished somebody with versus without the outcome. In other words, how was the outcome operationalized? (4 points) Could the outcome have been misclassified? In other words, is it likely that any of those who really did not have the outcome were classified as having it? Is it likely that any of those who had the outcome were classified as not having it? If misclassification of the outcome happened, is this misclassification likely to have been differential (dependent on exposure status) or non-differential (independent of exposure status)? (3 points) According to Table 2, what were the six major exposures? (6 points) Briefly state how data on the exposures were collected. (2 points) Considering how the data on the exposures were obtained, could there have been any possibility of information bias or misclassification of the exposure? If so, please explain how this might have occurred and the type of information bias involved. Was this misclassification likely to have been differential (dependent on outcome status) or non-differential (independent of outcome status)? (4 points) List one possible strength of this study. Strengths might be steps they took to make the study more reliable or valid, or what they contributed to the literature. (2 points) List one implication that this study could have either for public health practice or for future research. (2 points)

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."