Margaret R Savoca1, David A Ludwig2, Stedman T Jones3, K Jason Clodfelter4, Joseph B Sloop4, Linda Y Bollhalter3, Alain G Bertoni5. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Electronic address: msavoca@wakehealth.edu. 2. Division of Pediatric Clinical Research, Department of Pediatrics, and Division of Biostatistics, Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Leonard M. Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 4. MapForsyth|City-County Geographic Information Office, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Maya Angelou Center for Health Equity, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To support claims that RCTs can reduce health disparities (i.e., are translational), it is imperative that methodologies exist to evaluate the tenability of external validity in RCTs when probabilistic sampling of participants is not employed. Typically, attempts at establishing post hoc external validity are limited to a few comparisons across convenience variables, which must be available in both sample and population. A Type 2 diabetes RCT was used as an example of a method that uses a geographic information system to assess external validity in the absence of a priori probabilistic community-wide diabetes risk sampling strategy. METHODS: A geographic information system, 2009-2013 county death certificate records, and 2013-2014 electronic medical records were used to identify community-wide diabetes prevalence. Color-coded diabetes density maps provided visual representation of these densities. Chi-square goodness of fit statistic/analysis tested the degree to which distribution of RCT participants varied across density classes compared to what would be expected, given simple random sampling of the county population. Analyses were conducted in 2016. RESULTS: Diabetes prevalence areas as represented by death certificate and electronic medical records were distributed similarly. The simple random sample model was not a good fit for death certificate record (chi-square, 17.63; p=0.0001) and electronic medical record data (chi-square, 28.92; p<0.0001). Generally, RCT participants were oversampled in high-diabetes density areas. CONCLUSIONS: Location is a highly reliable "principal variable" associated with health disparities. It serves as a directly measurable proxy for high-risk underserved communities, thus offering an effective and practical approach for examining external validity of RCTs.
INTRODUCTION: To support claims that RCTs can reduce health disparities (i.e., are translational), it is imperative that methodologies exist to evaluate the tenability of external validity in RCTs when probabilistic sampling of participants is not employed. Typically, attempts at establishing post hoc external validity are limited to a few comparisons across convenience variables, which must be available in both sample and population. A Type 2 diabetes RCT was used as an example of a method that uses a geographic information system to assess external validity in the absence of a priori probabilistic community-wide diabetes risk sampling strategy. METHODS: A geographic information system, 2009-2013 county death certificate records, and 2013-2014 electronic medical records were used to identify community-wide diabetes prevalence. Color-coded diabetes density maps provided visual representation of these densities. Chi-square goodness of fit statistic/analysis tested the degree to which distribution of RCT participants varied across density classes compared to what would be expected, given simple random sampling of the county population. Analyses were conducted in 2016. RESULTS:Diabetes prevalence areas as represented by death certificate and electronic medical records were distributed similarly. The simple random sample model was not a good fit for death certificate record (chi-square, 17.63; p=0.0001) and electronic medical record data (chi-square, 28.92; p<0.0001). Generally, RCT participants were oversampled in high-diabetes density areas. CONCLUSIONS: Location is a highly reliable "principal variable" associated with health disparities. It serves as a directly measurable proxy for high-risk underserved communities, thus offering an effective and practical approach for examining external validity of RCTs.
Authors: Jens Ludwig; Lisa Sanbonmatsu; Lisa Gennetian; Emma Adam; Greg J Duncan; Lawrence F Katz; Ronald C Kessler; Jeffrey R Kling; Stacy Tessler Lindau; Robert C Whitaker; Thomas W McDade Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Martin Fortin; Jonathan Dionne; Geneviève Pinho; Julie Gignac; José Almirall; Lise Lapointe Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Paul J Christine; Amy H Auchincloss; Alain G Bertoni; Mercedes R Carnethon; Brisa N Sánchez; Kari Moore; Sara D Adar; Tamara B Horwich; Karol E Watson; Ana V Diez Roux Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Magnolia Cardona-Morrell; Lucie Rychetnik; Stephen L Morrell; Paola T Espinel; Adrian Bauman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 3.295