Jan J Barendregt1, J Lennert Veerman. 1. School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston 4006, Australia. j.barendregt@sph.uq.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The potential impact fraction is a measure of effect that calculates the proportional change in disease risk after a change in the exposure of a related risk factor. Potential impact fractions are increasingly used to calculate attributable fractions when the lowest exposure is non-zero. METHODS: Risk-factor exposure can be expressed as a categorical or a continuous variable. For a categorical risk factor, a change in risk-factor exposure can be expressed as a change in the proportion of the population in each category ('proportions shift'). For a continuous risk factor, the change is expressed as a change in its parameters ('distribution shift'). A third method ('RR shift') takes elements of both the categorical and the continuous approach. We compare the three calculation methods using hypothetical data on BMI and an intervention that affects the obese category. RESULTS: The 'proportion shift' calculation produces non-linear artefacts and is best avoided. The 'RR shift' and 'distribution shift' calculation require the estimation of an RR function to describe excess risk, but perform much better. CONCLUSION: The 'proportion shift' calculation is best avoided. The 'RR shift' and 'distribution shift' calculation produce virtually the same results. For evaluating high-risk strategies, the 'RR shift' calculation is the simplest and therefore preferred. The 'distribution shift' is best suited for evaluating population strategies.
BACKGROUND: The potential impact fraction is a measure of effect that calculates the proportional change in disease risk after a change in the exposure of a related risk factor. Potential impact fractions are increasingly used to calculate attributable fractions when the lowest exposure is non-zero. METHODS: Risk-factor exposure can be expressed as a categorical or a continuous variable. For a categorical risk factor, a change in risk-factor exposure can be expressed as a change in the proportion of the population in each category ('proportions shift'). For a continuous risk factor, the change is expressed as a change in its parameters ('distribution shift'). A third method ('RR shift') takes elements of both the categorical and the continuous approach. We compare the three calculation methods using hypothetical data on BMI and an intervention that affects the obese category. RESULTS: The 'proportion shift' calculation produces non-linear artefacts and is best avoided. The 'RR shift' and 'distribution shift' calculation require the estimation of an RR function to describe excess risk, but perform much better. CONCLUSION: The 'proportion shift' calculation is best avoided. The 'RR shift' and 'distribution shift' calculation produce virtually the same results. For evaluating high-risk strategies, the 'RR shift' calculation is the simplest and therefore preferred. The 'distribution shift' is best suited for evaluating population strategies.
Authors: Laura R Loehr; Wayne D Rosamond; Charles Poole; Ann Marie McNeill; Patricia P Chang; Anita Deswal; Aaron R Folsom; Gerardo Heiss Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-17 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Martin O Flaherty; Gemma Flores-Mateo; Kelechi Nnoaham; Ffion Lloyd-Williams; Simon Capewell Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Sabine Naudin; Vivian Viallon; Dana Hashim; Heinz Freisling; Mazda Jenab; Elisabete Weiderpass; Flavie Perrier; Fiona McKenzie; H Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Anja Olsen; Anne Tjønneland; Christina C Dahm; Kim Overvad; Francesca R Mancini; Vinciane Rebours; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Verena Katzke; Rudolf Kaaks; Manuela Bergmann; Heiner Boeing; Eleni Peppa; Anna Karakatsani; Antonia Trichopoulou; Valeria Pala; Giovana Masala; Salvatore Panico; Rosario Tumino; Carlotta Sacerdote; Anne M May; Carla H van Gils; Charlotta Rylander; Kristin Benjaminsen Borch; María Dolores Chirlaque López; Maria-Jose Sánchez; Eva Ardanaz; José Ramón Quirós; Pilar Amiano Exezarreta; Malin Sund; Isabel Drake; Sara Regnér; Ruth C Travis; Nick Wareham; Dagfinn Aune; Elio Riboli; Marc J Gunter; Eric J Duell; Paul Brennan; Pietro Ferrari Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2019-09-28 Impact factor: 8.082