Literature DB >> 9408714

The advantages of community-randomized trials for evaluating lifestyle modification.

S B Green1.   

Abstract

Observational studies may provide suggestive evidence for the results of behavior change and lifestyle modification, but they do not replace randomized trials for comparing interventions. To obtain a valid comparison of competing intervention strategies, randomized trials of adequate size are the recommended approach. Randomization avoids bias, achieves balance (on average) of both known and unknown predictive factors between intervention and comparison groups, and provides the basis of statistical tests. The value of randomization is as relevant when investigating community interventions as it is for studies that are directed at individuals. Randomization by group is less efficient statistically than randomization by individual, but there are reasons why randomization by group (such as community) may be chosen, including feasibility of delivery of the intervention, political and administrative considerations, avoiding contamination between individuals allocated to competing interventions, and the very nature of the intervention. One example is the Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT), which involved 11 matched pairs of communities and randomized within these pairs to active community-level intervention versus comparison. For analysis of results, community-level permutation tests (and corresponding test-based confidence intervals) can be designed based on the randomization distribution. The advantages of this approach are that it is robust, and the unit of randomization is the unit of analysis, yet it can incorporate individual-level covariates. Such covariates can play a role in imputation for missing values, adjustment for imbalances, and separate analyses in demographic subsets (with appropriate tests for interaction). A community-randomized trial can investigate a multichannel community-based approach to lifestyle modification, thus providing generalizability coupled with a rigorous evaluation of the intervention.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9408714     DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00013-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  6 in total

1.  In defense of the randomized controlled trial for health promotion research.

Authors:  Laura Rosen; Orly Manor; Dan Engelhard; David Zucker
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-05-30       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Effectively translating diabetes prevention: a successful model in a historically underserved community.

Authors:  Carol R Horowitz; Sarah Eckhardt; Sandra Talavera; Crispin Goytia; Kate Lorig
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.046

3.  Using participatory mapping to inform a community-randomized trial of HIV counseling and testing.

Authors:  Suzanne Maman; Tim Lane; Jacob Ntogwisangu; Precious Modiba; Heidi vanRooyen; Andrew Timbe; Surasing Visrutaratna; Katherine Fritz
Journal:  Field methods       Date:  2009-11

4.  ACTION live: using process evaluation to describe implementation of a worksite wellness program.

Authors:  Carolyn C Johnson; Yen-Ling Lai; Janet Rice; Diego Rose; Larry S Webber
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.162

5.  Methodologic issues in clinical trials for prevention or risk reduction in osteoarthritis.

Authors:  J M Jordan; M F Sowers; S P Messier; J Bradley; G Arangio; J N Katz; E Losina; L Rovati; N Bachtell; C Cooper; T Spector; W Zhang; J Gardiner; M Wahba
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 6.576

6.  Imputation strategies for missing binary outcomes in cluster randomized trials.

Authors:  Jinhui Ma; Noori Akhtar-Danesh; Lisa Dolovich; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-02-16       Impact factor: 4.615

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.