Question

I am a PSU official who is interested in the recent cohort study you (expert epidemiologist!) completed regarding the exposure of smoking and the outcome of asthma in college students at PSU. I want to know the proportion of asthma risk in PSU smokers that could be prevented if PSU smokers were to stop smoking. To provide me with an answer you will calculate which of the following:

Question 6 options:

	A) Attributable risk in the exposed
	B) An odds ratio
	C) A risk ratio
	D) Prevalence in the exposed
	E) Risk in the exposed

Question 7 (1 point)

Which of the following is/are con(s) of a cohort study design?

Question 7 options:

	A) Often takes longer than other study designs
	B) Cannot measure risk directly
	C) Cannot study multiple outcomes
	D) A and C
	E) A and B

Question 8 (1 point)

You are an epidemiologist who hypothesizes that the rare exposure of a living close to power lines by expectant mothers during pregnancy is a potential cause of premature birth, a relatively common pregnancy outcome. (Exposure = “close to power lines”; Outcome = “premature birth”).

A _____ design would be best suited for this scenario, because _____.

Question 8 options:

	A) A cohort study; it is suited to rare exposures, short periods of follow-up and common outcomes
	B) A case-control study; it is suited to rare exposures, short periods of follow-up and common outcomes
	C) A cohort study; it will allow the epidemiologist to study multiple exposures in addition to a raw-food vegan diet
	D) A case-control study; it is suited to studying a variety of outcomes in addition to premature birth
	E) A and C

Question 9 (1 point)

In order to minimize systematic error in a study, researchers should:

Question 9 options:

	A) Use rigorous study methods
	B) Recruit a large number of people to the study
	C) Select study participants based on disease status
	D) A and B
	E) None of the above

Question 10 (1 point)

You conduct a case-control study in Portland pediatric clinics to evaluate the relationship between the exposure of exclusive breastfeeding for at least the first 6 months of life, and the outcome of no ear infections during the first year of life. The exposure is “exclusive breastfeeding” (as opposed to mixed feeding or formula feeding. The outcome of interest is “no ear infections during the first year of life” (as opposed to having at least one ear infection). Your study produces an OR of 0.3, relating exposure and outcome. Assuming that the 95% Confidence Interval indicates your result is statistically significant, the interpretation for the OR in your study is:

Question 10 options:

	A) The odds of exclusive breastfeeding among children with no ear infections during the first year of life is 0.3 times that of those with at least one ear infection during the first year of life.
	B) The odds of no ear infections during the first year of life among exclusively breastfed children is 0.3 times the odds in the second year of life.
	C) The odds of exclusive breastfeeding and having no ear infections during the first year of life is 0.3%.
	D) The odds of exclusive breastfeeding and having no ear infections during the first year of life is 0.3 times that of non-exclusive breastfeeding and having at least one ear infection during the first year of life.
	E) None of the above.

Answer 1

6) (B) An odds ratio

In order to know the proportion of asthma risk in PSU smokers that could be prevented if PSU smokers were to stop smoking, we have to calculate an odds ratio.

An odds ratio quantifies the strength of association between two events.

As per Chegg guidelines, we can solve only the first question. So, please post the other questions separately. Thank you:)