|
Author
|
Message
|
sajjanshenoy
Credits:
4274
My Scrapbook
|
PSM
- Incidence and Prevalance Question
|
11.25.05 (3 years ago)
#1
|
|
This question is there in mock test dated 25 November 2005.
A recently discovered treatment for HIV AIDS significantly extends the lifespan of the patient, but does not prevent the disease or lead to its cure. Given this scenario, which of the following statements about HIV AIDS is true?
A. Its incidence will increase.
B. Its prevalence will increase.
C. Its incidence will decrease.
D. Its prevalence will decrease.
E. Both the incidence and prevalence will increase
The answer that is given is B. Its prevalance will increase.
I have the following doubt :
Prevalance will obviously increase because the duration of the disease is still high. But the question mentions that the treatment does not "prevent" the disease. There is no mention about prevention of "transmission" of disease. So, reading this statement, one assumes that transmission is also not prevented. In such a case, how can only prevalance rise ? How come the incidence is not rising ? According to me, both the incidence and prevalance should increase.
What do you people have to say about this ?
|
|
|
Post Options:
Add to favourite
.
Tell a friend
.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
docsa
Credits:
9073
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
11.25.05 (3 years ago)
#2
|
|
| Quote: |
| Prevalance will obviously increase because the duration of the disease is still high. |
u r right
| Quote: |
| But the question mentions that the treatment does not "prevent" the disease. There is no mention about prevention of "transmission" of disease. So, reading this statement, one assumes that transmission is also not prevented |
yes, but c transmission is not preventing at the same time transmission is not increased evn...........
so incidence is not changed... no point of increased incidence
HOPE U GOT THE POINT
|
|
|
Post Options:
Add to favourite
.
Tell a friend
.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
sajjanshenoy
Credits:
4274
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
11.25.05 (3 years ago)
#3
|
|
|
But when more number of people are living in a community with a particular disease, isn't it more likely that they will transmit the disease to more number of people than they would otherwise, when they had no treatment and they would have died earlier ? When they transmit the disease to more people, then naturally, the incidence should increase. Is my line of thinking wrong ?
|
|
|
Post Options:
Add to favourite
.
Tell a friend
.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
manpreet108
Credits:
30702
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
11.25.05 (3 years ago)
#4
|
|
i agree with the ans given.
no point of confusions--what they convey is --just an increase in longevity--thats all...
dont assume till specified that other factors -like transmission rate ,or risk to others in community is increased--just because of longevity of the pts.
that wd just add to confusion in this otherwise simple point...
|
|
|
Post Options:
Add to favourite
.
Tell a friend
.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
gandalf
Credits:
8395
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
11.25.05 (3 years ago)
#5
|
|
I second manpreet!!!
this treatment is going to increase the life of the patient. this indirectly means that, he is not to die-which would have happened,if not for the treatment....this leads to him being counted in the prevalence rate again, in the next year...(which would not have happened, had he died!!!)..this leads to an apparent increase in incidence...
the rx does not prevent the disease, thus no change in incidence.....
|
|
|
Post Options:
Add to favourite
.
Tell a friend
.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Topic Tags: 
