Estimating the Population Impact of Preventive Interventions from Randomized Trials

Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
American journal of preventive medicine (Impact Factor: 4.53). 02/2011; 40(2):191-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.022
Source: PubMed


Growing concern about the limited generalizability of trials of preventive interventions has led to several proposals concerning the design, reporting, and interpretation of such trials. This paper presents an epidemiologic framework that highlights three key determinants of population impact of many prevention programs: the proportion of the population at risk who would be candidates for a generic intervention in routine use, the proportion of those candidates who are actually intervened on through a specific program, and the reduction in incidence produced by that program among recipients. It then describes how the design of a prevention trial relates to estimating these quantities. Implications of the framework include the following: (1) reach is an attribute of a program, whereas external validity is an attribute of a trial, and the two should not be conflated; (2) specification of a defined target population at risk is essential in the long run and merits greater emphasis in the planning and interpretation of prevention trials; (3) with due attention to sampling frame and sampling method, the process of subject recruitment for a trial can yield key information about quantities that are important for assessing its potential population impact; and (4) exclusions during subject recruitment can be conceptually separated into intervention-driven, program-driven, and trial-design-driven exclusions, which have quite different implications for trial interpretation and for estimating population impact of the intervention studied.

Download full-text


Available from: Fred Rivara, May 09, 2014
  • Source
    • "To estimate population impact, it is necessary to identify the target population [22]. Because of the emphasis on antidepressant treatment in the CCM program, we chose to define candidates as all patients diagnosed with depression and prescribed an antidepressant medication. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Care management is feasible to deploy in routine care, and the depression outcomes of patients reached by this evidence-based practice are similar to those observed in randomized controlled trials. However, no studies have estimated the population level effectiveness of care management when deployed in routine care. Population level effectiveness depends on both reach into the target population and the clinical effectiveness for those reached. Method: This multisite hybrid Type 3 effectiveness-implementation study employed a pre-post, quasi-experimental design. The study was conducted at 22 Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinics. Evidence-based quality improvement was used as the facilitation strategy to promote adoption. Medication possession ratios (MPRs) were calculated for 1558 patients with an active antidepressant prescription. Differences in treatment response rates at implementation and control sites were estimated from observed differences in MPR. Results: Reach into the target population at implementation sites was 10.3%. Patients at implementation sites had a significantly higher probability of having MPR≥0.9 than patients at control sites [odds ratio=1.38, confidence interval95=(1.07, 1.78), P=.01]. This increase in MPR was estimated to yield a 1% point increase in response rates. Conclusions: While depression care management improves outcomes for patients receiving services, low levels of reach can reduce overall population level effectiveness.
    General hospital psychiatry 05/2013; 35(5). DOI:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.04.010 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of the study was to develop and implement a stepped collaborative care intervention targeting posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and related comorbidities to enhance the population impact of early trauma-focused interventions. We describe the design and implementation of the Trauma Survivors Outcomes and Support study. An interdisciplinary treatment development team was composed of trauma surgical, clinical psychiatric and mental health services "change agents" who spanned the boundaries between frontline trauma center clinical care and acute care policy. Mixed method clinical epidemiologic and clinical ethnographic studies informed the development of PTSD screening and intervention procedures. Two hundred seven acutely injured trauma survivors with high early PTSD symptom levels were randomized into the study. The stepped collaborative care model integrated care management (i.e., posttraumatic concern elicitation and amelioration, motivational interviewing and behavioral activation) with cognitive behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy targeting PTSD. The model was feasibly implemented by frontline acute care masters in social work and nurse practioner providers. Stepped care protocols targeting PTSD may enhance the population impact of early interventions developed for survivors of individual and mass trauma by extending the reach of collaborative care interventions to acute care medical settings and other nonspecialty posttraumatic contexts.
    General hospital psychiatry 03/2011; 33(2):123-34. DOI:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2011.01.001 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • Source

    Linguistics and Education 12/2011; 22(4):466-466. DOI:10.1016/j.linged.2011.10.001
Show more