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: 4.28). 02/2011; 40(2):191-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.022
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: The 3-item Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) is a commonly used scale to screen for hazardous alcohol use in various settings, including primary and emergency care settings. In such settings, brevity of effective screening tools is needed; therefore, single items to assess unhealthy alcohol use have been developed and tested for sensitivity and specificity in detecting high-risk alcohol use behaviors. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to replicate and extend previous work intended to validate the ability of a non-quantity-based single item assessing drunkenness to effectively identify signs of hazardous alcohol use, as determined by the AUDIT-C. Methods: During fall 2013, alcohol use data were collected from a sample of 781 self-reported current drinkers, using the AUDIT-C items and a single item to measure frequency of drunkenness. In addition, breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) samples were collected. Concurrent validity of the drunkenness item to detect hazardous drinking behaviors, as determined by the gender-based AUDIT-C thresholds, was assessed. Examining the relationship of the single item to BrAC samples assessed convergent validity of the drunkenness item. Data were analyzed using SPSS. Results: The single drunkenness item accounted for 0.856 of the area under the received operating characteristics (ROC) curve for hazardous alcohol use (p<0.001). Using a specific cut-off of 1, the drunkenness item was 99.8% sensitive in detecting hazardous drinking behavior. Conclusion: In a new sample, initial psychometric findings of concurrent and convergent validity of the single drunkenness item to accurately detect hazardous alcohol use were replicated.
    142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition 2014; 11/2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE Violence and injury risk behaviors, alcohol and drug use problems, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depressive symptoms occur frequently among adolescents presenting to acute care medical settings after traumatic physical injury. OBJECTIVE To test the effectiveness of a stepped collaborative care intervention targeting this constellation of risk behaviors and symptoms in randomly sampled hospitalized adolescents with and without traumatic brain injury. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted at a single US level I trauma center. Participants included 120 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years randomized to intervention (n = 59) and control (n = 61) conditions. INTERVENTIONS Stepped collaborative care intervention included motivational interviewing elements targeting risk behaviors and substance use as well as medication and cognitive behavioral therapy elements targeting PTSD and depressive symptoms. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Adolescents were assessed at baseline before randomization and 2, 5, and 12 months after injury hospitalization. Standardized instruments were used to assess violence risk behaviors, alcohol and drug use, and PTSD and depressive symptoms. RESULTS The investigation attained more than 95% adolescent follow-up at each assessment point. At baseline, approximately one-third of the participants endorsed the violence risk behavior of carrying a weapon. Regression analyses demonstrated that intervention patients experienced significant reductions in weapon carrying compared with controls during the year after injury (group × time effect, F3,344 = 3.0; P = .03). At 12 months after the injury, 4 (7.3%) intervention patients vs 13 (21.3%) control patients reported currently carrying a weapon (relative risk, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11-0.90). The intervention was equally effective in reducing the risk of weapon carrying among injured adolescents with and without traumatic brain injury. Other treatment targets, including alcohol and drug use problems and high levels of PTSD and depressive symptoms, occurred less frequently in the cohort relative to weapon carrying and were not significantly affected by the intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Collaborative care intervention reduced the risk of adolescent weapon carrying during the year after the injury hospitalization. Future investigation should replicate this preliminary observation. If the finding is replicated, orchestrated investigative and policy efforts could systematically implement and evaluate screening and intervention procedures targeting youth violence prevention at US trauma centers. TRIAL REGISTRATION identifier: NCT00619255.
    04/2014; 168(6):1-8. DOI:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4784
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE Limited data exist on the adequacy of treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after combat deployment. This study assessed the percentage of soldiers in need of PTSD treatment, the percentage receiving minimally adequate care, and reasons for dropping out of care. METHODS Data came from two sources: a population-based cohort of 45,462 soldiers who completed the Post-Deployment Health Assessment and a cross-sectional survey of 2,420 infantry soldiers after returning from Afghanistan (75% response rate). RESULTS Of 4,674 cohort soldiers referred to mental health care at a military treatment facility, 75% followed up with this referral. However, of 2,230 soldiers who received a PTSD diagnosis within 90 days of return from Afghanistan, 22% had only one mental health care visit and 41% received minimally adequate care (eight or more encounters in 12 months). Of 229 surveyed soldiers who screened positive for PTSD (PTSD Checklist score ≥50), 48% reported receiving mental health treatment in the prior six months at any health care facility. Of those receiving treatment, the median number of visits in six months was four; 22% had only one visit, 52% received minimally adequate care (four or more visits in six months), and 24% dropped out of care. Reported reasons for dropout included soldiers feeling they could handle problems on their own, work interference, insufficient time with the mental health professional, stigma, treatment ineffectiveness, confidentiality concerns, or discomfort with how the professional interacted. CONCLUSIONS Treatment reach for PTSD after deployment remains low to moderate, with a high percentage of soldiers not accessing care or not receiving adequate treatment. This study represents a call to action to validate interventions to improve treatment engagement and retention.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 05/2014; 65(8). DOI:10.1176/ · 1.99 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 3, 2014