Prevention and Control of Diseases and Health Conditions - Case Study Example

Prevention and Control of Diseases and Health Conditions Part The following table demonstrates the outcome of test: In the above table, True positive (a): Number of patients having the disease and the test is positiveFalse positive (b): Number of patients does not have the disease but the test is positiveTrue negative (d): Number of patients does not have the disease and the test is negativeFalse negative (c): Number of patients having the disease but the test is negativeTotal test positives = a + bTotal test negatives = c + dTotal diseased = a + cTotal normal = b + dTotal population = a + b + c + dSensitivity = TP ÷ (TP + FN) = 100 ÷ (100 + 850) = 0.

10 = 10%Specificity = TN ÷ (TN + FP) = 2025 ÷ (2025 + 75) = 0.96 = 96%Predictive Value for a + test (PPV) = TP ÷ (TP + FP) = 100 ÷ (100 + 75) = 0.57 = 57%Predictive Value for a – test (NPV) = TN ÷ (TN + FN) = 2025 ÷ (2025 + 850) = 0.70 = 70%Source: (Lalkhen & McCluskey, 2008). Part 2Question aSensitivity = a / (a + c) = 86 / (86 + 12) = 0.87 = 87%Specificity = d / (d + b) = 352 / (352 + 25) = 0.93 = 93%Positive predictive value = a / (a + b) = 86 / (86 + 25) = 0.

77 = 77%Negative predictive value = d / (c + d) = 352 / (12 + 352) = 0.96 = 96%Source: (Malur et al., 2009)Question bSensitivity = a / (a + c) = 156 / (156 + 38) = 0.80 = 80%Specificity = d / (d + b) = 1150 / (1150 + 45) = 0.96 = 96%Positive predictive value = a / (a + b) = 156 / (156 + 45) = 0.77 = 77%Negative predictive value = d / (c + d) = 1150 / (38 + 1150) = 0.96 = 96%Source: (Malur et al., 2009).Question cFalse positive screening test result can cause anxiety and additional expenses.

Thus, the clinical and managerial impactions of false positive screening comprise new screening program which should entail explicit evaluation of the outcome of false positives. Furthermore, organizations must ensure that people establishing and operating screening programs are completely trained in every aspect of medical test. Question d With respect to false negative screening, organizations must ensure clinical efficiency for the medical services. The central aspect of ensuring efficiency is validity which can be measured through the level of sensitivity, specificity and predictive values.

Question eThe prevalence of disease is a vital consideration in screening activities. In this context, it can be stated that as the prevalence increases, the predictive values are affected. However, the increased prevalence of cancer has low influence on sensitivity and specificity (Petticrew et. al., 2000). Question fIn conclusion, it can be stated that recognizing the epidemiology of transferrable diseases is vital for appropriate administration of medical care. The transferable diseases represent significant demand of screening tests which should be executed carefully in order to develop proper treatment.

False screening not only results in increased anxiety, but can also give rise to delays in treatment or faults in the treatment program for patients (Fos & Fine, 2012). ReferencesFos, P. J., & Fine, D. J. (2012). Managerial epidemiology for health care organizations. United States: John Wiley & Sons. Lalkhen, A. G., & McCluskey, A. (2008). Clinical tests: sensitivity and specificity. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain, 8(6), 221-223. Malur, P. R., Desai, B. R., Anita, D.

, Geeta, D., Bhavana, S., & Pallav, G. (2009). Sequential screening with cytology and colposcopy in detection of cervical Neoplasia. South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1(3), 45-48. Petticrew, M. P., Sowden, A. J., Lister-Sharp, D., Wright, K. (2000). False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implications. Health Technology Assessment, 4(5), 1-70.