Literature DB >> 22438082

Context by treatment interactions as the primary object of study in cluster randomized controlled trials of population health interventions.

Daniel Fuller1, Louise Potvin.   

Abstract

Cluster randomized controlled trials are increasingly used in population health intervention research. Through randomization, researchers attempt to isolate the treatment effect and remove all other effects, including any effects of social context. In many cases, the constant effect assumption cannot be satisfied in cluster randomized controlled trials. We argue that when studying population health interventions, the effective mechanism of intervention lies in the interaction between the treatment and social context. Researchers should be cognizant that attempts to remove the effect of social context using CRTC may fail. The interaction between the treatment and social context should be the primary object of study in population health intervention research.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22438082     DOI: 10.1007/s00038-012-0357-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Public Health        ISSN: 1661-8556            Impact factor:   3.380


  12 in total

Review 1.  Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals.

Authors:  Suezann Puffer; David Torgerson; Judith Watson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-10-04

2.  CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials.

Authors:  Marion K Campbell; Diana R Elbourne; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-20

3.  Campbell and Rubin: A primer and comparison of their approaches to causal inference in field settings.

Authors:  William R Shadish
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2010-03

4.  Good intentions and received wisdom are not good enough: the need for controlled trials in public health.

Authors:  Sally Macintyre
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 5.  Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care.

Authors:  Sandra M Eldridge; Deborah Ashby; Gene S Feder; Alicja R Rudnicka; Obioha C Ukoumunne
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.486

6.  The limitations of 'evidence-based' public health.

Authors:  John Kemm
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 7.  Alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public health interventions: design challenges and solutions.

Authors:  C P Bonell; J Hargreaves; S Cousens; D Ross; R Hayes; M Petticrew; B R Kirkwood
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2009-02-12       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 8.  Alternatives to randomisation in the evaluation of public-health interventions: statistical analysis and causal inference.

Authors:  S Cousens; J Hargreaves; C Bonell; B Armstrong; J Thomas; B R Kirkwood; R Hayes
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance.

Authors:  Peter Craig; Paul Dieppe; Sally Macintyre; Susan Michie; Irwin Nazareth; Mark Petticrew
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-09-29

10.  Cluster randomised trials in the medical literature: two bibliometric surveys.

Authors:  J Martin Bland
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2004-08-13       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  8 in total

1.  Evidence and harm: time for reflection.

Authors:  David V McQueen
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.380

2.  Population health intervention research: three important advancements.

Authors:  Till Bärnighausen
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 3.380

3.  The role of the built environment in a randomized controlled trial to increase physical activity among men with prostate cancer: the PROMOTE trial.

Authors:  Erin L McGowan; Daniel Fuller; Nicoleta Cutumisu; Scott North; Kerry S Courneya
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Commentary: What is a population-based intervention? Returning to Geoffrey Rose.

Authors:  Katherine L Frohlich
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 7.196

5.  Effectiveness of a community-based educational programme in reducing the cumulative incidence and prevalence of human Taenia solium cysticercosis in Burkina Faso in 2011-14 (EFECAB): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Hélène Carabin; Athanase Millogo; Helena A Ngowi; Cici Bauer; Veronique Dermauw; Assana Cissé Koné; Ida Sahlu; Alicia L Salvator; Pierre-Marie Preux; Télesphore Somé; Zékiba Tarnagda; Sarah Gabriël; Rabiou Cissé; Jean-Bosco Ouédraogo; Linda D Cowan; Marie-Paule Boncoeur-Martel; Pierre Dorny; Rasmané Ganaba
Journal:  Lancet Glob Health       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 26.763

6.  Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review.

Authors:  Laetitia Minary; Justine Trompette; Joëlle Kivits; Linda Cambon; Cyril Tarquinio; François Alla
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  How context can impact clinical trials: a multi-country qualitative case study comparison of diagnostic biomarker test interventions.

Authors:  Marco J Haenssgen; Nutcha Charoenboon; Nga T T Do; Thomas Althaus; Yuzana Khine Zaw; Heiman F L Wertheim; Yoel Lubell
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-02-08       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Learning from a cluster randomized controlled trial to improve healthcare workers' access to prevention and care for tuberculosis and HIV in Free State, South Africa: the pivotal role of information systems.

Authors:  Annalee Yassi; Prince A Adu; Letshego Nophale; Muzimkhulu Zungu
Journal:  Glob Health Action       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 2.640

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.