Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sampling & Field Investigation
Sampling & Field Investigation
Garba Bashiru
Outline
Sampling methods
Field investigations
Population
Data collection is fraught with challenges that often affect the results
of studies.
Generalizability
Refers to the extent to which the results from analyzing a sample can be said to apply to the
entire population.
Sampling error
Is the difference between a sample statistics (such as a mean) and a true value of the
population. It’s actually highly connected to the issue of representativeness.
Sampling methods
Sampling: This refers to the procedure you follow to determine the exact cases that make it into your
sample from the population
Probability sampling
• A probability sample is one where each unit in the population has an equal chance of being included in
the sample.
Non-probability sampling
• In this case, the chance of anyone unit being included is not only not equal to
that of other units, but isn’t known at all.
• Not every unit of the population has equal chance of being selected.
• More likely to produce bias.
• Convenience sampling-Selection of the most readily available sample/unit
for a study.
• Purposive sampling-Researcher uses judgement to select subjects.
• Quota sampling: Similar to stratified but does not involve random selection
(select 50 male and 50 female).
• Snowball sampling-Subjects refer the researcher to others who might be
recruited as subjects.
Field investigations
• Before starting the field component of the outbreak investigation, you should
ensure that you are well prepared for field activities.
• This involves making sure you have all the equipment (disinfectants, recording
gears, restraints etc) and information (species involved, time of outbreak,
location) you require to conduct the initial outbreak investigation
• Concerns related to the safety of the field team (e.g., whether personal
protective equipment will be needed) also should be considered during this first
step.
Confirm the diagnosis
• Confirming or verifying the diagnosis ensures that you are addressing the problem that was
reported initially and rules out misdiagnosis.
• Diagnoses can be confirmed by; interviewing the affected farmers; clinical examination
of the affected animals by veterinarian; reviewing clinical history; confirming the
results of laboratory testing.
• If the epidemiologist does not have the expertise to assess the adequacy, accuracy, or
meaning of the laboratory findings, laboratory scientists and other personnel should be
consulted.
• Although laboratory data might be the best and only link between a putative cause and case,
not every case requires laboratory confirmation before further action can be taken.
Determine the existence of an outbreak
• This step also is necessary to rule out spurious problems (e.g., pseudoepidemics or
reporting increases caused by surveillance artifacts).
• To confirm the existence of an outbreak, the field investigation team must first
compare the number of cases during the suspected outbreak period with the number
of cases that would be expected during a non-outbreak timeframe by;
• For certain problems, an outbreak can be rapidly confirmed through use of existing
surveillance data.
Identify and count cases
• This step involves translating and transforming data from the line
listing into a basic epidemiologic description of the outbreak.
• In practice, however, decisions about control measures might be necessary at any step in the
sequence, and preliminary control measures can be instituted on the basis of limited initial
information and then modified as needed as the investigation proceeds.
• Control measures should be considered again after more systematic studies are complete.
Develop and test hypotheses
• Hypotheses about the disease-causing agent, source or reservoir of the agent, transmission
mode, and risk factors for disease can be developed based on information from multiple sources
including:
• Expert subject-matter knowledge by field epidemiologists, laboratory colleagues, and others;
• Descriptive epidemiologic findings resulting from analysis of the line listing of identified affected
animals;
• Information obtained from interviews of animal owners by using structured questionnaires or
open-ended questioning;
• Consideration of outlier cases (i.e., cases with onset occurring at the beginning or end of the
outbreak period).