Henry W. Riecken Jr. (1917-2012).

Presents an obituary for Henry (Hank) W. Riecken Jr. In 1950, Riecken received his doctorate from Harvard University, having studied in the Department of Social Relations, which enjoyed a well-known relationship with the Department of Psychology. A thought leader, and a follower and booster of interesting thoughts (more prescience), Riecken was the first director of the National Science Foundation's (NSF's) Office of Social Sciences (later called a division) in 1959. As vice president and then president of the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) from 1966 to 1971, Hank led the development of the first state-of-the-art monograph on randomized controlled trials in the United States. Riecken was a member of the first Director's Advisory Committee at the National Institutes of Health. He became a member of the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Medicine in 1969 (one of two social scientists) and, as a founding member, assisted in the challenging effort to create the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 1971. Hank is survived by his children Gilson, Susan, and Anne. He talked about them often, gently, and proudly and clearly loved them. The current Riecken Foundation, whose mission aims at substantial enhancements to libraries in Guatemala, is a testimony to Riecken's beneficence and to the intellectually generous spirit of him and his family.

Inadequate reporting of research ethics review and informed consent in cluster randomised trials: review of random sample of published trials.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices. DESIGN: Review of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline. SETTING: Cluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals. RESULTS: 77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.

Replication in prevention science.

Replication research is essential for the advancement of any scientific field. In this paper, we argue that prevention science will be better positioned to help improve public health if (a) more replications are conducted; (b) those replications are systematic, thoughtful, and conducted with full knowledge of the trials that have preceded them; and (c) state-of-the art techniques are used to summarize the body of evidence on the effects of the interventions. Under real-world demands it is often not feasible to wait for multiple replications to accumulate before making decisions about intervention adoption. To help individuals and agencies make better decisions about intervention utility, we outline strategies that can be used to help understand the likely direction, size, and range of intervention effects as suggested by the current knowledge base. We also suggest structural changes that could increase the amount and quality of replication research, such as the provision of incentives and a more vigorous pursuit of prospective research registers. Finally, we discuss methods for integrating replications into the roll-out of a program and suggest that strong partnerships with local decision makers are a key component of success in replication research. Our hope is that this paper can highlight the importance of replication and stimulate more discussion of the important elements of the replication process. We are confident that, armed with more and better replications and state-of-the-art review methods, prevention science will be in a better position to positively impact public health.

Associations between the Youth/Adolescent Questionnaire, the Youth/Adolescent Activity Questionnaire, and body mass index z score in low-income inner-city fourth through sixth grade children.

BACKGROUND: Diet and physical activity are important factors in the etiology, prevention, and treatment of chronic diseases such as obesity and its associated comorbidities. Accurate measures of diet and activity are critical in understanding how these lifestyle and behavioral factors covary to affect health status. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between body mass index (BMI) z score and self-report measures of diet and activity, the Youth/Adolescent Questionnaire (YAQ) and the Youth/Adolescent Activity Questionnaire (YAAQ), respectively. DESIGN: Participants were 1092 students in grades 4 through 6 from 10 schools in a US city in the middle Atlantic region with >or=50% of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Students were assessed at baseline and again after 2 y. The relation between self-reported energy intake (YAQ) and activity (physical and sedentary) (YAAQ) and BMI z score was explored from both a cross-sectional and longitudinal perspective. RESULTS: The YAQ (energy intake) and YAAQ (physical and sedentary activity) did not relate to BMI z score in the expected directions from either a cross-sectional or longitudinal perspective. CONCLUSION: In this large, racially diverse sample, the YAQ and the YAAQ were not significantly associated with BMI z score or changes in BMI z score.

Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination.

Ever increasing demands for accountability, together with the proliferation of lists of evidence-based prevention programs and policies, led the Society for Prevention Research to charge a committee with establishing standards for identifying effective prevention programs and policies. Recognizing that interventions that are effective and ready for dissemination are a subset of effective programs and policies, and that effective programs and policies are a subset of efficacious interventions, SPR's Standards Committee developed overlapping sets of standards. We designed these Standards to assist practitioners, policy makers, and administrators to determine which interventions are efficacious, which are effective, and which are ready for dissemination. Under these Standards, an efficacious intervention will have been tested in at least two rigorous trials that (1) involved defined samples from defined populations, (2) used psychometrically sound measures and data collection procedures; (3) analyzed their data with rigorous statistical approaches; (4) showed consistent positive effects (without serious iatrogenic effects); and (5) reported at least one significant long-term follow-up. An effective intervention under these Standards will not only meet all standards for efficacious interventions, but also will have (1) manuals, appropriate training, and technical support available to allow third parties to adopt and implement the intervention; (2) been evaluated under real-world conditions in studies that included sound measurement of the level of implementation and engagement of the target audience (in both the intervention and control conditions); (3) indicated the practical importance of intervention outcome effects; and (4) clearly demonstrated to whom intervention findings can be generalized. An intervention recognized as ready for broad dissemination under these Standards will not only meet all standards for efficacious and effective interventions, but will also provide (1) evidence of the ability to "go to scale"; (2) clear cost information; and (3) monitoring and evaluation tools so that adopting agencies can monitor or evaluate how well the intervention works in their settings. Finally, the Standards Committee identified possible standards desirable for current and future areas of prevention science as the field develops. If successful, these Standards will inform efforts in the field to find prevention programs and policies that are of proven efficacy, effectiveness, or readiness for adoption and will guide prevention scientists as they seek to discover, research, and bring to the field new prevention programs and policies.

Quality of evidence: usefulness in measuring the quality of health care.

BACKGROUND: In 1998, the Committee on Health Care Quality in America was created and given the charge of devising a strategy to achieve substantial improvement in the quality of health care for all Americans. One strategy to move the quality agenda forward is the use of evidence by both providers of health care and consumers of health care. One feature of this agenda, evidence-based practice, refers to a hierarchy of evidence ranging from individual randomized, controlled trials to expert opinion. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this article are to describe the evidence base in nursing, discuss the quality and strength of nursing's evidence, illustrate the application of the Quality Health Outcomes Model, and present recommendations for practice, research, and policy to increase nursing's contribution to quality health care. RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Nurses everywhere must use innovative solutions to operationalize the "evidence" in evidence-based nursing. The Quality Health Outcomes Model (QHOM) provides a useful way of advancing research and evidence about the quality of health care in America. In concert with the conceptual framework for the National Health Care Quality Report, the QHOM provides a map for identifying evidence gaps and research questions arising from the model and conceptual framework, as well as evidence synthesis (integrating methodologic quality) driven by theoretical understanding.