| Course | NU 602 Epidemiology, Research, and Theory |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Epidemiologic rate worksheet |
| Length | About 840 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 602 Unit 1
Rate Calculation Worksheet: Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Among Adults in One County, 2025
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 602: Epidemiology, Research, and Theory
Instructor Name
January 21, 2026
Rate Calculation Worksheet: Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Among Adults in One County, 2025
The Population and the Data
The data describe a composite county. On January 1, 2025, the adult population, aged 18 and older, was 120,000, and 13,200 adults had diagnosed type 2 diabetes according to the county's linked clinical records. During 2025, 1,068 adults received a new diagnosis. Deaths from all causes among adults numbered 1,320, of which 396 occurred among adults with diabetes. For simplicity, the worksheet assumes no migration in or out of the county during the year. A separate item uses a clinic cohort with person-time data. Results are shown to one decimal.
Item 1: Point Prevalence on January 1
Question: What proportion of adults had diagnosed diabetes on January 1, 2025?
Formula: point prevalence = people with the condition on a given date / everyone in the population on that date.
Substitution: 13,200 cases / 120,000 adults = 0.110.
Result: 11.0%, or 110 per 1,000 adults, on January 1, 2025. Prevalence counts everyone who has the condition, however long ago it began, so it measures burden, not risk.
Item 2: The Population at Risk
Question: How many adults could have developed diabetes during 2025?
Working: people who already have the condition cannot become new cases, so they leave the denominator for incidence. Population at risk = 120,000 minus 13,200 = 106,800 adults. Epidemiology training materials define the population at risk as the group of people who could develop the condition during the period (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2012).
Result: 106,800 adults at risk on January 1, 2025.
Item 3: Cumulative Incidence in 2025
Question: What was the risk of a new diagnosis during 2025 among adults without diabetes on January 1?
Formula: cumulative incidence = new cases during the period / population at risk at the start of the period.
Substitution: 1,068 new cases / 106,800 at risk = 0.010.
Result: 10.0 new cases per 1,000 adults at risk per year. Using the whole adult population as the denominator, 1,068 / 120,000, would give 8.9 per 1,000, which understates the risk because 13,200 of those adults could not become new cases.
Item 4: Age-Specific Incidence
Question: How did the risk differ by age?
| Age group | At risk on January 1 | New cases in 2025 | Incidence per 1,000 at risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 to 44 | 52,000 | 174 | 3.3 |
| 45 to 64 | 34,000 | 482 | 14.2 |
| 65 and older | 20,800 | 412 | 19.8 |
| All adults | 106,800 | 1,068 | 10.0 |
Item 4, Interpretation
Adults aged 65 and older had about six times the incidence of adults aged 18 to 44 (19.8 compared with 3.3 per 1,000). The overall figure of 10.0 is a weighted average of the three groups; it describes no single age group well. Any comparison of this county's overall incidence with another county's would need to account for differences in age structure, which is the subject of standardization.
Item 5: Period Prevalence for 2025
Question: What proportion of adults had diagnosed diabetes at any time during 2025?
Formula: period prevalence = (existing cases at the start + new cases during the period) / population.
Substitution: (13,200 + 1,068) / 120,000 = 14,268 / 120,000 = 0.119.
Result: 11.9%. Period prevalence is higher than point prevalence because it adds people diagnosed during the year. The two answer different questions: point prevalence asks how many have diabetes today, which matters for staffing a clinic on a given day; period prevalence asks how many needed diabetes care at some point during the year, which matters for an annual budget.
Item 6: Mortality Among Adults With Diabetes
Question: What was the all-cause death rate among adults with diabetes in 2025, compared with all adults?
Substitution: 396 deaths / 14,268 adults with diabetes during the year = 27.8 per 1,000 per year. For all adults: 1,320 / 120,000 = 11.0 per 1,000 per year.
Result: the death rate among adults with diabetes was about 2.5 times that of all adults. Two cautions apply. The denominator 14,268 counts everyone with diabetes during the year, including people diagnosed in December who were at risk for only a few weeks; a mid-year population or person-time would be more accurate. And the comparison is not adjusted for age, which is higher among adults with diabetes, so much of the difference may reflect age rather than diabetes itself.
Item 7: Incidence Rate With Person-Time
Question: In a clinic cohort of 2,000 adults with prediabetes, followed for up to five years for a total of 7,450 person-years, 149 developed diabetes. What was the incidence rate?
Formula: incidence rate = new cases / total person-time at risk.
Substitution: 149 / 7,450 person-years = 0.020.
Result: 20.0 new cases per 1,000 person-years. Person-time handles people who were followed for different lengths of time, including those who left the clinic or died, which cumulative incidence cannot do without losing them from the denominator (Noordzij et al., 2010). The rate is twice the county's overall incidence, as expected for a group selected because it was already at high risk.
Summary
Incidence measures how often new cases arise among people at risk; prevalence measures how many people have the condition. Both come from the same records, but they use different numerators, different denominators, and answer different planning questions (Celentano & Szklo, 2019).
References
Celentano, D. D., & Szklo, M. (2019). Gordis epidemiology (6th ed.). Elsevier.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Principles of epidemiology in public health practice: An introduction to applied epidemiology and biostatistics (3rd ed.). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Noordzij, M., Dekker, F. W., Zoccali, C., & Jager, K. J. (2010). Measures of disease frequency: Prevalence and incidence. Nephron Clinical Practice, 115(1), c17-c20. https://doi.org/10.1159/000286345
NU 602 Unit 1 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 1 is a set of epidemiologic calculations, usually prevalence, incidence, mortality and rate comparisons, worked from data your instructor provides or from a scenario you build. Expect to state each formula, show the numerator and denominator, compute the answer with units and interpret it in a sentence. Many versions include person-time incidence and age-specific rates. Check whether your section supplies the numbers or asks you to create a realistic data set; invented numbers are fine if they are internally consistent. Showing the working is usually required, and it is where partial credit comes from when an answer is off. Use standard references such as the CDC's Principles of Epidemiology for definitions. Round consistently and state the multiplier, per 100 or per 1,000, every time.
How the NU 602 Unit 1 example is put together
The worksheet opens with one paragraph describing the population and the counts available, so every later item draws from the same data. Each item follows the same layout: question, formula, numbers substituted, answer and interpretation. That repetition makes the arithmetic easy to check. The population at risk item is placed before cumulative incidence, because people who already have diabetes cannot become new cases, a step many students skip. The age-specific item adds a short interpretation paragraph explaining why the overall figure hides a sixfold difference. The person-time item uses a cohort with uneven follow-up to show when a rate is better than a proportion. The summary closes by contrasting incidence, how often new cases arise, with prevalence, how many people have the condition.
Reading the NU 602 Unit 1 rubric
Expect this worksheet to be graded largely on accuracy, with points for correct formulas, correct numerators and denominators, correct answers with units, interpretation and presentation. Formula and setup criteria often carry as much weight as the final answer, because they show understanding. The population at risk is a common checkpoint for cumulative incidence. Interpretation points go to plain sentences that say what the number means for the population. Herzing graders may award partial credit for correct setup with an arithmetic slip, but not for an answer without working. Presentation covers a clear layout and consistent rounding. References to Celentano and Szklo or the CDC text in APA 7 support the definitions used.
NU 602 Unit 1 help before you submit
Worksheets in Unit 1 lose points most often when the denominator for incidence includes people who already had the condition. Another frequent error is omitting the multiplier, so a rate of 10 appears without per 1,000. Students also confuse point and period prevalence. Person-time rates are often calculated as simple proportions, which ignores uneven follow-up. Answers given without interpretation earn less. Inconsistent rounding across items makes checking hard. Some students skip the formula and show only the result, losing setup credit. Finally, check that invented data add up across items, since a population that changes size between questions without explanation signals the numbers were not tracked carefully.
Get a NU 602 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 1 instructions and the rubric from your NU 602 classroom, plus the data table or scenario your section supplies. We write a custom example with each denominator defined, person-time displayed for every contributor, units carried through the working and a line of interpretation beneath each result, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 602 papers and MSN samples
- NU 602 Unit 2: Prevalence and duration brief
- NU 602 Unit 3: Standardized rate comparison
- NU 602 Unit 4: Study design justification
- NU 602 Unit 5: Bias and confounding review
- NU 602 Unit 6: Screening test evaluation
- NU 602 Unit 7: Theoretical framework application
- NU 602 Unit 8: Study protocol outline
- NU 700 Unit 1: Discussion post
- NU 725 Unit 1: Informatics role analysis
- NU 726 Unit 1: Professional role paper
- NU 730 Unit 1: Systems analysis
NU 602 Unit 1 questions, answered
Does the working have to be shown?
Assume yes unless your instructions say otherwise. A bare answer earns credit only if it happens to be right, while displayed working lets an instructor award partial credit when one substitution slipped and everything else was sound. It also proves you chose the denominator deliberately, which is the reasoning the item exists to test rather than your ability to operate a calculator.
How do I decide between incidence and prevalence?
Read what the question wants to know. If it asks how much new disease appeared over a stretch of time, that is incidence and only people capable of becoming cases belong underneath it. If it asks how much disease exists right now, that is prevalence and current cases stay in. Wording like new cases, developed or occurred during is usually the giveaway.
Can the worksheet use numbers I invented?
Where your section supplies a table, use that one. Where it does not, constructed figures are normal and expected, so keep them plausible, label them clearly as illustrative and choose values that make the steps visible rather than values that divide suspiciously well. What you must never do is present constructed figures as surveillance output from a real population.
Where can I find a free NU 602 Unit 1 sample paper?
The full NU 602 Unit 1 diabetes rate worksheet is free on this page, all seven items with formulas, working and interpretation. If your instructor supplies different data or measures, a custom worksheet can be worked from them.
How do I calculate cumulative incidence in epidemiology?
Divide the number of new cases during a period by the population at risk at the start, meaning people without the condition, and state the multiplier. This sample subtracts the 13,200 adults who already had diabetes before computing 10.0 per 1,000.