首页> 外文期刊>SSM - Population Health >Credibility of subgroup analyses by socioeconomic status in public health intervention evaluations: An underappreciated problem?
【24h】

Credibility of subgroup analyses by socioeconomic status in public health intervention evaluations: An underappreciated problem?

机译:在公共卫生干预评估中通过社会经济地位进行的亚组分析的可信度:一个未被充分认识的问题?

获取原文
           

摘要

There is increasing interest amongst researchers and policy makers in identifying the effect of public health interventions on health inequalities by socioeconomic status (SES). This issue is typically addressed in evaluation studies through subgroup analyses, where researchers test whether the effect of an intervention differs according to the socioeconomic status of participants. The credibility of such analyses is therefore crucial when making judgements about how an intervention is likely to affect health inequalities, although this issue appears to be rarely considered within public health. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the credibility of subgroup analyses in published evaluations of public health interventions. An established set of 10 credibility criteria for subgroup analyses was applied to a purposively sampled set of 21 evaluation studies, the majority of which focussed on healthy eating interventions, which reported differential intervention effects by SES. While the majority of these studies were found to be otherwise of relatively high quality methodologically, only 8 of the 21 studies met at least 6 of the 10 credibility criteria for subgroup analysis. These findings suggest that the credibility of subgroup analyses conducted within evaluations of public health interventions’ impact on health inequalities may be an underappreciated problem.
机译:研究人员和政策制定者对通过社会经济地位(SES)确定公共卫生干预措施对健康不平等的影响的兴趣与日俱增。这个问题通常在评估研究中通过亚组分析得到解决,在亚组分析中,研究人员根据参与者的社会经济状况测试干预的效果是否有所不同。因此,在判断干预措施可能如何影响健康不平等时,此类分析的可信度至关重要,尽管在公共卫生领域似乎很少考虑该问题。因此,本研究的目的是评估在公共卫生干预措施的已发表评估中亚组分析的可信度。针对亚组分析建立的一套10个可信度标准应用于一组有针对性的21项评估研究样本,其中大多数研究集中于健康饮食干预措施,该措施报告了SES的干预效果不同。虽然这些研究中的大多数在方法学上都被认为是相对高质量的,但是21项研究中只有8项符合亚组分析的10项可信度标准中的至少6项。这些发现表明,在对公共卫生干预措施对健康不平等影响的评估中进行的亚组分析的可信度可能是一个未被重视的问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号