Epidemiology
What each epidemiology question is really asking, how to structure the answer, and where the marks are likely to sit.
A five to six page evaluation report on an E. coli outbreak at a regional hospital: itemising nosocomial infections by person, time, place, ethnicity and gender, proposing questions for the health department, and building a treatment contingency plan.
Five questions, and the third is a different kind of task: apply an epidemiological model from Module 3 to the events. That is the analytical core, and it is easy to answer impressionistically.
A 500-1,000 word Collaborative Learning Community paper on the history of influenza as a health issue: determinants of health and socioeconomic influences, past and present initiatives, the outcome indicators developed to measure progress, and the current status based on those measures.
Part one is descriptive and only descriptive. The temptation is to explain why the disease clusters where it does — but that is part two's marks, and spending them here leaves you with nothing to write later.
Three components are named and the third is the one that gets skipped. The obstacles section is not a caveat paragraph — it is a third of the assignment and the part that shows you have thought about implementation.
After exploring the supplied websites, define epidemiology and public health in your own words, profile your local public health department, and explain why two public health milestones mattered in the past, present and future, in a 2-3 page APA essay with headings.
The third question is the technical one: the criteria to be met *before* screening for a disease are a published set, not a matter of judgement, and answering it from first principles rather than from Wilson and Jungner is the commonest way to lose marks here.
A three-part discussion: pick a disease in your own geographic area, tie it to an epidemiologic sub-field, give its descriptive epidemiology locally, and summarize the week's case.
The rubric asks for two things the numbered requirements never mention, and the disease you pick decides whether requirement six is writeable at all. Also: the list of ten has nine diseases on it.
The second half is the harder question: what data would be necessary. A pattern in surveillance data is a reason to investigate, not yet a reason to change practice.
A community health discussion post comparing local tuberculosis incidence and prevalence against wider data, then applying the Epidemiologic Triangle and the three levels of prevention to an outbreak among migrant farm workers in a rural county.
A four-part discussion on the MMWR: its role in conveying public health information, the kinds of data it carries, a summary of a recent report with natural history and transmission, and whether that report is descriptive or analytical epidemiology.
The question asks where asthma is least common, which is the harder direction. Then it asks for a hypothesis, and a hypothesis has to be testable rather than plausible.