Different measures of disease are useful to evaluate and assess public health programs and needs in different situations. For each of the following situations indicate (1) which measure (from the list below) would best be used, and (2) explain why you chose that measure.

Situations

A. To demonstrate that railroad crossings need to be safer to prevent car-train crashes
B. To demonstrate that a primary prevention program is successful
C. To demonstrate that a new leukemia treatment is successful
D. To estimate the healthcare facilities needed to support Alzheimer's patients
E. To argue that AIDS is a public health problem
F. The argue that heart disease should get more funding than AIDS
G. To demonstrate that a new screening program for breast cancer is effective

Measures of Disease

I=incidence rate
P=prevalence rate
C=case fatality rate
M=mortality rate (crude death rate)
A=absolute number of cases (counts)

..."would be best be used"...

So, what is best? What is the purpose of the argument? Sometimes an honest analysis would chose one measure as the best, but an advocate wanting funding for something might choose another as best for his purpose. There is an adage, statistics lie. Here in this exercise you get to decide if you are going to use stats to lie, or are you going to use them to do some analysis. Once you decide that, you are on the way to deciding which is best.

We will be happy to critique your thinking.

I apologize for not providing my answers.

Different measures of disease are useful to evaluate and assess public health programs and needs in different situations. For each of the following situations indicate (1) which measure (from the list below) would best be used, and (2) explain why you chose that measure.

Situations

A. To demonstrate that railroad crossings need to be safer to prevent car-train crashes - Incidence
B. To demonstrate that a primary prevention program is successful - Prevalence
C. To demonstrate that a new leukemia treatment is successful - case fatality
D. To estimate the healthcare facilities needed to support Alzheimer's patients - Absolute number of cases
E. To argue that AIDS is a public health problem - Prevalence or Mortality
F. The argue that heart disease should get more funding than AIDS - Prevalence
G. To demonstrate that a new screening program for breast cancer is effective
- Incidence or Mortality
Measures of Disease

I=incidence rate
P=prevalence rate
C=case fatality rate
M=mortality rate (crude death rate)
A=absolute number of cases (counts)

e. Prevalence

d. number of cases
g. effective is usually measured by lifespan between detection and death. If something can increase that, it is an effective treatment. Screening programs are often just measured by how much more effective they are in "detecting" cancer than other screening programs. This measure increases ïncidence", as more cancers are detected. I suppose I would argue in this case, of the choices, case fatility rate is approprate ...after all, the long term idea is to find and treat cancer and cure it. But in practice, that is a lofty goal, so chosing lifespan between detection and death is a more practical measure of effectiveness, but that is not one of the choices.
f. Prevalence is the best choice. But cost effectiveness is important here, and I would choose a measure related to deaths prevented per thousand dollars spent, or such. Example: if it costs 1 million dollars per saved life in heart cases, but only ten dollars per aids patient, the amount of money spent per disease would change drastically.
The others look ok to me, but frankly, my systems analysis background doesn't like the question, it annoyed me, as cost effectiveness is not considered. In reality, life is choices bases on benefit analysis, not just examining the extent and severity of diseases.
The cost-benefit analysis of the new immunization available to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer is a most appropriate example, and should have been used in this question. It merits more analysis than a multiple choice based on single words.
This entire field, cost benefit analysis of public health programs is very challenging, and most important to the world. I hope your instructor encourages you to dig deeper.

Good luck.

A. To demonstrate that railroad crossings need to be safer to prevent car-train crashes:

(1) Measure: Incidence rate (I)
(2) Explanation: Incidence rate is the number of new cases of a specific disease or condition within a population at risk over a defined period of time. In this situation, the incidence rate would be the best measure because it can reflect the frequency of car-train crashes occurring at railroad crossings. By comparing the incidence rate of car-train crashes at different crossings, it would be possible to identify high-risk areas and make a case for the need to improve safety measures at those locations.

B. To demonstrate that a primary prevention program is successful:
(1) Measure: Incidence rate (I)
(2) Explanation: Similar to the previous situation, the incidence rate would be suitable to assess the effectiveness of a primary prevention program. By comparing the incidence rate of the disease or condition before and after the implementation of the program, it can be determined whether there has been a decrease in new cases. A decrease in the incidence rate would indicate that the primary prevention program has been successful in reducing the occurrence of the specific disease or condition.

C. To demonstrate that a new leukemia treatment is successful:
(1) Measure: Case fatality rate (C)
(2) Explanation: The case fatality rate is the proportion of individuals diagnosed with a particular disease or condition who die from it within a specified period. In the case of a new leukemia treatment, the case fatality rate would be the most appropriate measure to determine its success. By comparing the case fatality rate before and after the introduction of the new treatment, it can be determined whether the treatment has led to a decrease in the proportion of leukemia patients who die from the disease. A lower case fatality rate would indicate the treatment's effectiveness.

D. To estimate the healthcare facilities needed to support Alzheimer's patients:
(1) Measure: Prevalence rate (P)
(2) Explanation: The prevalence rate represents the proportion of individuals in a population who have a particular disease or condition at a specific point or period. When estimating the healthcare facilities needed to support Alzheimer's patients, the prevalence rate would be the most appropriate measure. By identifying the prevalence rate of Alzheimer's within a particular region or population, it can provide an understanding of the number of individuals affected by the disease. This information is crucial for planning and allocating resources for healthcare facilities and services to adequately support Alzheimer's patients.

E. To argue that AIDS is a public health problem:
(1) Measure: Absolute number of cases (A)
(2) Explanation: The absolute number of cases is the raw count of individuals diagnosed with a particular disease or condition. In order to argue that AIDS is a public health problem, the absolute number of AIDS cases would be the suitable measure. By presenting the actual number of cases, it emphasizes the magnitude of the issue and highlights the significance of addressing it from a public health perspective.

F. To argue that heart disease should get more funding than AIDS:
(1) Measure: Mortality rate (M)
(2) Explanation: The mortality rate, also known as the crude death rate, represents the number of deaths from a particular cause within a population during a specific time period. To argue that heart disease should receive more funding than AIDS, the mortality rate would be the appropriate measure. By comparing the mortality rates associated with heart disease and AIDS, it can be demonstrated that heart disease poses a greater risk to population health. This information can support the allocation of more funding towards preventing, treating, and researching heart disease.

G. To demonstrate that a new screening program for breast cancer is effective:
(1) Measure: Incidence rate (I)
(2) Explanation: Once again, the incidence rate would be an appropriate measure to assess the effectiveness of a new screening program for breast cancer. By comparing the incidence rate of breast cancer before and after the implementation of the program, it can be determined whether the program has led to an earlier detection of the disease. A decrease in the incidence rate or a shift towards lower stages of breast cancer at diagnosis would indicate the effectiveness of the screening program.