Question

1. An epidemiologist presented information regarding the annual prevalence (number of cases per 1,000) of adolescent pregnancy to a local health planning board. The epidemiologist compared data for the local county with data for the United States as a whole. One of the members of the planning board objected that this comparison was not valid because the county is much smaller than the entire country. From an epidemiologic perspective, was the objection a valid one? Why or why not? (2 points) SHOW ALL WORK.

Answer 1

Answer:

• Here the protest by arranging board part is substantial. We can agree which is due to the low sample space.

i.e.,

Predominance:

• It helps in depicting the extent of a well-being result and dispersion of a well-being result in certain populace.
• Henceforth pervasiveness of one gathering can't be contrasted and another gathering when the populace size is extraordinary.
• The disease transmission specialist introduced the yearly pervasiveness of immature pregnancy and he had contrasted the neighborhood nation information and US information.
• Nation has a lot littler populace size when thinking about the number of inhabitants in US.
• Correlations among various populace bunches which are diverse in their size are not legitimate utilizing pervasiveness information all things considered.
• In such situations substantial correlations should be possible if pervasiveness is communicated as extent likewise named as point commonness determined by separating number of sick people by populace size where it happened.