Question

Read the passage provided, and then consider the following scenario. A physician is trying to decide whether to prescribe medication for cholesterol reduction in a 45-year-old female patient. The null hypothesis is that the patient’s cholesterol is less than the threshold of treatable hypercholesterolemia. However, a sample of readings over a 2-year time period shows considerable variation, usually below but sometimes above the threshold. Define Type I and Type II error. List the costs of each type of error (in general terms). Who bears the cost of each? How might the patient’s point of view differ from the HMO’s or doctor’s? In what sense is this a business problem? A societal problem? An individual problem?

Answer 1

Ans:

given data:

• age of the female patient =45 years
• sample of reading over a time period= 2 years.

Here we have to findout the social problem;

• Hypercholesterolemia is a known hazard factor for coronary conduit ailment.
• The danger of death from coronary corridor ailment has a ceaseless and evaluated connection to add up to serum cholesterol levels higher than 180 mg/dl.
• In any case, the proportion of aggregate cholesterol to HDL cholesterol is a superior indicator of coronary corridor sickness than the level of either part alone.
• After menopause, plasma LDL cholesterol fixations ascend to equivalent, and after that to surpass, those of men, in the meantime HDL cholesterol focuses fall somewhat. . . .
• This puts ladies at equivalent or more serious hazard for cardiovascular infection. As per the aftereffects of therapeutic preliminaries,
• There is convincing proof that a decrease in the level of cholesterol prompts a noteworthy lessening in the rate of cardiovascular occasions. . . .
• In this manner, screening for high blood cholesterol is an essential clinical intercession.
• The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute . . . prescribes that all people matured 20 or more have a cholesterol assurance at any rate once at regular intervals. . . . Convenient distinguishing proof of high-chance people permits thought of different treatment choices.
• For patients who don't have coronary illness or fringe vascular malady, accentuation ought to be put on non-pharmacologic methodologies, for the most part changes in eating routine and exercise.
• Medication treatment ought to be held for those at most noteworthy danger of coronary illness: men over 35 years old and postmenopausal ladies.