PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10468438

Methodologic issues in epidemiologic risk assessment.

Abstract

This paper reviews methodologic issues pertinent to the application of epidemiology in risk assessment and discusses concerns in the presentation of results from such an activity. Assessment of the health risks associated with occupational and environmental exposures involves four phases: hazard identification, i.e., the detection of the potential for agents to cause adverse health effects in exposed populations; exposure assessment, i.e., the quantification of exposures and the estimation of the characteristics and sizes of the exposed populations; dose-response assessment, i.e., the modeling for risk realization; and risk characterization, i.e., the evaluation of the impact of a change in exposure levels on public health effects. The risk-assessment process involves limitations of exposure data, many assumptions, and subjective choices that need to be considered when using this approach to provide guidance for health policy or action. In view of these uncertainties, we suggest that the provision of estimates of individual risk and disease burden in a population must be accompanied by the corresponding estimates of precision; risks should be presented in a sufficiently disaggregated form so that population heterogeneities are not lost in the data aggregation; and different scenarios and risk models should be applied. The methods are illustrated by an assessment on the health impacts of exposure to silica.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Nurminen, T Nurminen, C F Corvalán. 1999. Methodologic issues in epidemiologic risk assessment.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10468438/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The quality case for information technology in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: As described in the Institute of Medicine's Crossing the Quality Chasm report, the quality of health care in the U.S. today leaves much to be desired. DISCUSSION: One major opportunity for improving quality relates to increasing the use of information technology, or IT. Health care organizations currently invest less in IT than in any other information-intensive industry, and not surprisingly current systems are relatively primitive, compared with industries such as banking or aviation. Nonetheless, a number of organizations have demonstrated that quality can be substantially improved in a variety of ways if IT use is increased in ways that improve care. Specifically, computerization of processes that are error-prone and computerized decision support may substantially improve both efficiency and quality, as well as dramatically facilitate quality measurement. This report discusses the current levels of IT and quality in health care, how quality improvement and management are currently done, the evidence that more IT might be helpful, a vision of the future, and the barriers to getting there. SUMMARY: This report suggests that there are five key policy domains that need to be addressed: standards, incentives, security and confidentiality, professional involvement, and research, with financial incentives representing the single most important lever.

Decision Support Techniques↗

Assessment of snorers in primary care: straight path to treatment.

Habitual snoring needs to be taken seriously, both as a symptom of other sleep disorders and as a condition in its own right. GPs approached by patients with problematic snoring face a dilemma regarding whether (and to which service) those patients should be referred for a specialist opinion. Using the Sparks Chart, snoring patients can be grouped according to the two symptomatic dimensions of excessive daytime sleepiness and nocturnal hypoxaemia. We believe that the approach outlined in this article offers GPs a coherent and pragmatic guideline for referring and/or managing problematic snoring by using a simple questionnaire and pulse oximetry. The method has the potential to improve primary and secondary liaison. Most importantly, it offers patients a straight path to treatment.

Decision Support Techniques↗