Literature DB >> 7653464

Design and analysis of community trials: lessons from the Minnesota Heart Health Program.

D M Murray1.   

Abstract

Community trials remain the only design appropriate for the evaluation of lifestyle interventions that cannot be allocated to individuals. The Minnesota Heart Health Program, conducted in Minnesota and the Dakotas between 1980 and 1993, is one of the largest community trials ever conducted in the United States. That study suggests several lessons that should guide future community trials. Planners should 1) carefully assess the secular trends for their outcomes and be confident that they can demonstrate an intervention effect against those trends; 2) be confident that they have effective programs than can be delivered to a sufficiently large fraction of their target population; 3) avoid differences between study conditions in levels and trends for their outcomes through random allocation of a sufficient number of communities to each condition; 4) develop good estimates of community-level standard errors prior to launching future trials; and 5) take steps to ensure that power will be sufficient to test the hypotheses of interest.

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7653464     DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117677

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  15 in total

1.  Introducing the theme in a qualitative interview using a visual starter.

Authors:  B Lorentzson; E Trell
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  Measuring the costs and benefits of heart disease monitoring.

Authors:  A Perry; S Capewell; A Walker; J Chalmers; A Redpath; K Major; C E Morrison; N Craig; S Cobbe; W C Smith
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 5.994

3.  Controlled evaluation of a community based injury prevention program in Australia.

Authors:  J Ozanne-Smith; L Day; V Stathakis; J Sherrard
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.399

4.  The Kaiser Family Foundation Community Health Promotion Grants Program: findings from an outcome evaluation.

Authors:  E H Wagner; T M Wickizer; A Cheadle; B M Psaty; T D Koepsell; P Diehr; S J Curry; M Von Korff; C Anderman; W L Beery; D C Pearson; E B Perrin
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Community health improvement approaches: accounting for the relative lack of impact.

Authors:  S M Shortell
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 6.  Reconsidering community-based health promotion: promise, performance, and potential.

Authors:  Cheryl Merzel; Joanna D'Afflitti
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 7.  Residential environments and cardiovascular risk.

Authors:  Ana V Diez Roux
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.671

8.  How should interventions to reduce inequalities in health be evaluated?

Authors:  J P Mackenbach; L J Gunning-Schepers
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Logics and logistics of community intervention against osteoporosis: an evidence basis.

Authors:  J Waller; M Angbratt; C Blomberg; A C Kronhed; L Larsson; O Löfman; M Möller; G Toss; M Foldevi; E Trell
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 4.460

10.  New directions for community intervention studies.

Authors:  M Feinleib
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 9.308

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.