Literature DB >> 6513619

Choosing the correct unit of analysis in Medical Care experiments.

Q E Whiting-O'Keefe, C Henke, D W Simborg.   

Abstract

The statistical methodology of health research experiments published in Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and Medical Care between 1975 and 1980 for the presence or absence of an error of experimental design and analysis was examined. The error is the result of inappropriately using patient-related observations as the unit of analysis to form conclusions about provider behavior or outcomes determined jointly by patients and providers. The error was present in 20 of 28 (71%) health care experiments addressing an issue of health provider professional performance. Its usual effect is to increase erroneously the power of an experiment to detect differences between experimental and control groups. It is likely that this type of error could be avoided by the explicit and prospective definition of hypotheses and the populations to which they are intended to pertain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6513619     DOI: 10.1097/00005650-198412000-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  43 in total

Review 1.  Methods in health service research. Evaluation of health interventions at area and organisation level.

Authors:  O C Ukoumunne; M C Gulliford; S Chinn; J A Sterne; P G Burney; A Donner
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-08-07

2.  Can continuous quality improvement be assessed using randomized trials? [see comment].

Authors:  G Samsa; D Matchar
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Unit of analysis errors should be clarified in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Ruth E Thomas; Craig R Ramsay; Laura McAuley; Jeremy M Grimshaw
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-02-15

4.  Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes.

Authors:  J Grimshaw; L M McAuley; L A Bero; R Grilli; A D Oxman; C Ramsay; L Vale; M Zwarenstein
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-08

5.  Program factors that influence utilization of adult day care.

Authors:  K J Conrad; S L Hughes; S Wang
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 6.  Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent methodological developments.

Authors:  David M Murray; Sherri P Varnell; Jonathan L Blitstein
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 7.  Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: a review.

Authors:  M Mugford; P Banfield; M O'Hanlon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-08-17

8.  Randomised trial of educational visits to enhance use of systematic reviews in 25 obstetric units.

Authors:  J C Wyatt; S Paterson-Brown; R Johanson; D G Altman; M J Bradburn; N M Fisk
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-10-17

9.  Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group.

Authors:  L A Bero; R Grilli; J M Grimshaw; E Harvey; A D Oxman; M A Thomson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-08-15

10.  Evaluation of a public-private certified nurse-midwife maternity program for indigent women.

Authors:  D Lenaway; T D Koepsell; T Vaughan; G van Belle; K Shy; F Cruz-Uribe
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 9.308

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.