Research Designs for Complex Community Interventions for Childhood Obesity Prevention PowerPoint PPT Presentation

presentation player overlay
1 / 18
About This Presentation
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Research Designs for Complex Community Interventions for Childhood Obesity Prevention


1
Research Designs for Complex Community
Interventions for Childhood Obesity Prevention
  • Robert W. Jeffery, Ph.D.
  • Division of Epidemiology
  • University of Minnesota
  • School of Public
  • May 4-5, 2004

2
Hypothesis
Changes in the food environment of middle schools
and high schools will reduce the prevalence of
overweight in students.
3
Design Option 2-Group Randomized Trial
  • Unit of randomization is school
  • Primary outcome, change in BMI, is measured on
    students.
  • Two-year duration

4
School Selection Eligibility Criteria
  • Co-educational
  • Student ages 12-18
  • At least 2-year attendance expectation
  • Feasibility of intervention
  • Feasibility of data collection
  • Consent of school
  • Satisfactory consent procedure for students

5
Recruitment Enrollment Procedure
  • Random selection of schools to approach
  • Possible stratification by public/private, SES,
    ethnic composition (stratification very limited)
  • Age range (e.g., middle school, high school)

6
Intervention Components Food Service
  • School lunch
  • A la carte
  • Vending machines

7
Food Service Targets
  • Reduce overall availability of food at school
  • Increase availability of low-energy food
  • Decrease availability of high-energy food
  • Increase price of high-energy food
  • Decrease price of low-energy food
  • Reduce food advertising on campus

8
Primary Outcome
  • Change in BMI measured at baseline, 12 months,
    and 24 months
  • Measured in as many students as possible who
    attend school for the 2-year period

9
Secondary Measures
  • Individual level (self-report)
  • Diet
  • Physical activity
  • Demographics
  • Psychosocial measures
  • Intervention exposure
  • School level (direct observation)
  • Intervention implementation
  • Food sales

10
Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design
R O X O OR 0 0 0
11
Threats to Validity Internal
  • Differential experience not related to treatment
    as a function of treatment group
  • Measurement or dropout bias by treatment group
    (lack of blinding is problematic, but unavoidable)

12
Threats to Validity External
  • Volunteer bias, both individual and school
  • Limited school pool
  • Feasibility constraints
  • Overall sample size

13
Pragmatic IssuesCost
  • Maintaining good fidelity of intervention
    delivery can be costly, since school food
    service, a la carte food service, and vending
    involve different business operations.
  • Objective assessment of food sales can also be
    costly.
  • Number of schools is a major determinant of cost.

14
Pragmatic IssuesQuality Control
  • Political considerations often make intervention
    implementation incomplete.
  • Food service is a dynamic activity that requires
    careful monitoring.
  • Large sample size may reduce quality of
    intervention.

15
Analysis IssuesSources of Variance in Outcomes
  • Individual characteristics
  • Intervention variability
  • School effect

16
Analysis OptionsBy School
  • Maximum protection against threats to internal
    and external validity
  • Including individual characteristics and
    intervention fidelity terms reduces variance
  • Cost of producing enough replications to achieve
    adequate power is problematic

17
Analysis OptionsBy Individual
  • Internal validity threatened by differential
    factors between schools other than
    interventionplausibility of this threat is
    estimable by historical data
  • Individual level and intervention delivery
    effects may again be useful covariates
  • External validity and generalizability are weak
    with this approach

18
Summary Conclusion
  • The group randomized trial is the gold standard
    for evaluating community intervention trials.
  • It is strong on both internal and external
    validity and thus provides a strong evidential
    basis for important decisions like public health
    policy.
  • It is not necessary for establishing the
    plausibility of an intervention approach.
  • Thus, it is best thought of as representing the
    culmination of a line of research in an area
    rather than a prerequisite for research funding
    related to community intervention.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com