Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluating Community-Based Translational Interventions Using Historical Controls: Propensity Score vs. Disease Risk Score Approach.
Jiang, Luohua; Chen, Shuai; Beals, Janette; Siddique, Juned; Hamman, Richard F; Bullock, Ann; Manson, Spero M.
Afiliación
  • Jiang L; Department of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92697-7550, USA. lhjiang@uci.edu.
  • Chen S; Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
  • Beals J; Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
  • Siddique J; Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
  • Hamman RF; Department of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, LEAD Center, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
  • Bullock A; Division of Diabetes Treatment and Prevention, Indian Health Service, Rockville, MD, USA.
  • Manson SM; Centers for American Indian and Alaska Native Health, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Prev Sci ; 20(4): 598-608, 2019 05.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30747394
Many community-based translations of evidence-based interventions are designed as one-arm studies due to ethical and other considerations. Evaluating the impacts of such programs is challenging. Here, we examine the effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention implemented by the Special Diabetes Program for Indians Diabetes Prevention (SDPI-DP) demonstration project, a translational lifestyle intervention among American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Data from the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program placebo group was used as a historical control. We compared the use of propensity score (PS) and disease risk score (DRS) matching to adjust for potential confounder imbalance between groups. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for diabetes risk was 0.35 for SDPI-DP lifestyle intervention vs. control. However, when relevant diabetes risk factors were considered, the adjusted HR estimates were attenuated toward 1, ranging from 0.56 (95% CI 0.44-0.71) to 0.69 (95% CI 0.56-0.96). The differences in estimated HRs using the PS and DRS approaches were relatively small but DRS matching resulted in more participants being matched and smaller standard errors of effect estimates. Carefully employed, publicly available randomized clinical trial data can be used as a historical control to evaluate the intervention effectiveness of one-arm community translational initiatives. It is critical to use a proper statistical method to balance the distributions of potential confounders between comparison groups in this kind of evaluations.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 / Investigación sobre la Eficacia Comparativa / Estilo de Vida Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Prev Sci Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 / Investigación sobre la Eficacia Comparativa / Estilo de Vida Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Prev Sci Asunto de la revista: CIENCIA Año: 2019 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos