Analytic Epidemiology Designs: In 2011, the United

Analytic Epidemiology Designs:

In 2011, the United States Food and Drug Administration reported a shortage of vital chemotherapy drugs, which in turn interfered with clinical trials and contributed to probable challenges in evaluating data from those studies. According to the National Institutes of Health, considerable research trials were hindered by shortages of drugs for treatment of infectious diseases and cancer (Allen, 2011). One of the most important aspects of the advancement of disease prevention and treatment is experimental research that incorporates clinical trials. After the establishment of a risk factor, an intervention is usually tested through experimental research methods and designs. In this case, the most important thing is to examine whether the drug essentially prevents or ameliorates symptoms. Experimental research plays a crucial role in analytic epidemiology to an extent it's considered as the "gold standard" of the process.

Epidemiological Context of HIV / AIDS:

Epidemiological study for HIV / AIDS has traditionally focused on individual risk factors, which have proven to be inadequate to deal with the current public health challenges of this population health problem (Scribner et. al., n.d.). The inadequacy of such epidemiology study is attributed to the fact that HIV / AIDS involves complex interactions between biological and social factors. As a result, the current health care system and practitioners have focused on the development of a new epidemiological approach over the past few decades. These efforts have contributed to the development of ecological epidemiology to help address the complexities.

Generally, the epidemiological context for HIV / AIDS is dependent on various factors including the intervention of interest, the intervention's impact, and the existing state and trends in biological and behavioral factors affecting its transmission dynamics. Randomized controlled trials are regarded as the most effective means of assessing specific interventions and act as the "gold standard" for dealing with the influence of context (Grassly et. al., 2001, p.1122). The effectiveness of Randomized Controlled Trials is informed by the ability of randomization across people or communities to eliminate the effect of variation in contextual factors on the apparent success or failure of the process. In the past few years, randomized control trials have found a significant number of interventions with the probability of broader implementation. Some of the most common interventions identified by these trials include enhanced quality and use of STI, use of safe breastfeeding alternatives, and sexual behavior change.

Quasi-Experimental Research Design:

An example of a randomized control trial in HIV / AIDS is the quasi-experimental research design or method. A quasi-experimental research design is not only community-based but also culturally and ecologically developed HIV prevention intervention. The experimental research method is designed based on the new epidemiological approach i.e. ecological epidemiology. In an experiment to evaluate HIV prevention intervention for Mexican-American female adolescents known as the SHERO's program, quasi-experimental research demonstrated considerable increases in behavioral results among intervention participants (Harper et. al., 2009, p.110). The research design provided these results when it was used to examine the ability of a one-time clinical-based intervention to lessen the risk of HIV / AIDS among the population.

Quasi-experimental research design seems to be the best experimental research for dealing with HIV / AIDS because it addresses the wide range of cultural-specific ecological and psychosocial factors that may have an effect on HIV risk and protection. The research design does not primarily focus on analyzing individual risk factors but incorporates a multi-level framework that examines contextual factors that affect risk at the individual level. It's based on the assumption that social and environmental constructs can either promote or restrict individual level behaviors that in turn contribute to the associated risk. As a result, quasi-experimental research design helps in addressing the current public health challenges of HIV / AIDS and the complexities of interactions between biological and social factors.

However, quasi-experimental research design in HIV / AIDS is associated with some ethical issues emerging from their implementation. The first ethical issue is that the research design does not consider descriptive accuracy as its primary motive. This is mainly because of the overwhelming paperwork that therapists and community educators are required to fill out. Secondly, the success reports tend to be exaggerated because of the tendency to consider unfavorable anecdotes over favorable ones (Campbell & Krauss, 2012, p.81).

While quasi-experimental research design in HIV / AIDS provides encouraging results, it may fail to effectively deal with cultural and environmental factors that impact the study population. This design focuses on addressing the overall ecological and cultural factors but does not necessarily address the underlying issues that may influence individual level risk. Therefore, the effectiveness of the use of the research design in the selected population health problem requires critical consideration of these factors when developing the experimental research design. When these factors are considered in designing the research method, its use contributes to increased participation in sexual health promoting outcomes and post-intervention behaviors due to changes in psychosocial beliefs and attitudes.

In conclusion, experimental research is an important part of epidemiological study that includes clinical trials and plays a critical role in prevention and treatment of diseases. The research design that best addresses HI/AIDS is quasi-experimental research design, which focuses on ecological factors. The effectiveness of this design originates from its emphasis on ecological and cultural factors that influence risk at individual level.