It hasn’t been too long since celebrity Jenny McCarthy let
it be known that she is vehemently opposed to our current vaccines. She was one
of the first celebrities to support the pseudoscientific view that vaccinations
cause autism, and recently
she has made it clear that she thinks anyone carrying a virus is deathly “sick,”
in her comments made about former co-star Charlie Sheen, who has HIV. Uh, that’s
not exactly how the fields of virology and immunology have deduced the process,
Jenny.
Nonetheless, public health officials will soldier on because
they recognize the benefits of vaccinating people, especially
children, and that such vaccination prevents sickness even in the case of
contracting the virus. One question I’ve always had as a bench scientist is how
is it that public health officials know they’re doing their job efficiently? I
see many of my friends going to public health school wanting to help with the
education arm of public health issues. How do we know if the methods they use
are effective? What is a quantifiable measure for us to obtain a level of
effectiveness?
Dually, I’ve enjoyed spending the semester reading about
statistical tests we haven’t gone over in class. One of those tests is known as
the McNemar’s test. A quick interwebs definition says McNemar’s test is
a “statistical test on
paired nominal data,” or basically assigning a binomial outcome to paired
data (see Figure 1 for paired data example). When I first read about this, I
thought of vaccines. A good signal to public health educators that their
programs are working are whether populations are vaccinated or not,
specifically communities that face traditional barriers to quality healthcare.
In
a community health paper published in 2013, public health professionals at
SUNY Upstate tested their hypothetical vaccination intervention, which involved
partnering with community organizations such as the Salvation Army, allowing
patients a Q&A session prior to vaccination, and connect to vaccination
specialists through community liasions. The authors of the study paired their
subjects based on age and household income across 10 different community sites,
separating them by intervention positive or intervention negative status, and measuring
proof of influenza vaccination in the presence or absence of the intervention.
They wanted to compare if the intervention had successfully raised the vaccination
levels across age cohorts and overall. The group then used McNemar’s test to
construct their 95% confidence intervals to illustrate the nearly 17% increase
(95% CI 15.5-19.5) in influenza vaccination levels (see Figure 2) to compared
to state and county level alternative interventions. Impressive! Although the
authors don’t report a p-value, with the right null hypothesis, McNemar can
calculate one for you. It’s so handy.
One limitation to McNemar’s test is that it’s meant for
large groups. However, based on the population scope of public health data,
this doesn’t seem to be an issue – in fact it is an advantage for novice public
health professionals to know this fact, especially if they’ve never done
statistical analysis.
Figure 3. A screen grab of the McNemar test calculator found on GraphPad. Motulsky recommends readers use this for calculation of confidence intervals and p-values in his book. |
No comments:
Post a Comment