Information de reference pour ce titreAccession Number: | 00004773-201201000-00016.
|
Author: | Petticrew, Mark 1; Tugwell, Peter 2; Kristjansson, Elizabeth 3; Oliver, Sandy 4; Ueffing, Erin 5; Welch, Vivian 5
|
Institution: | (1)Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK (2)Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (3)School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (4)Social Sciences Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK (5)Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
Title: | Damned if you do, damned if you don't: subgroup analysis and equity.[Miscellaneous]
|
Source: | Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 66(1):95-98, January 2012.
|
Abstract: | The final report from the WHO Commission on the social determinants of health recently noted: 'For policy, however important an ethical imperative, values alone are insufficient. There needs to be evidence on what can be done and what is likely to work in practice to improve health and reduce health inequities.' This is challenging, because understanding how to reduce health inequities between the poorest and better-off members of society may require a greater use of subgroup analysis to explore the differential effects of public health interventions. However, while this may produce evidence that is more policy relevant, the requisite subgroup analyses are often seen as tantamount to statistical malpractice. This paper considers some of the methodological problems with subgroup analysis, and its applicability to considerations of equity, using both clinical and public health examples. Finally, it suggests how policy needs for information on subgroups can be met while maintaining rigour.
(C) 2012 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
|
Author Keywords: | Health policy; inequalities SI; public health epidemiology; socioeconomic; systematic reviews.
|
References: | 1. Evans T, Brown H. Road traffic crashes: operationalizing equity in the context of health sector reform. Inj Control Saf Promot 2003;10:11-12.
2. Oliver S, Kavanagh J, Caird J, et al.. Health promotion, inequalities and young people's health: a systematic review of research. EPPI-Centre Report no. 1611. London: EPPI-Centre, 2008.
3. Tugwell P, Maxwell L, Welch V, et al.. Is Health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group? Arthritis Rheum 2008;15:1603-10.
4. Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1993.
5. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org- ouverture dans une nouvelle fenêtre (accessed Sep 2008).
6. Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, et al.. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA 1991;266:93-8.
7. Rothwell P. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 2005;365:176-86.
8. Hernandez A, Boersma E, Murray G, et al.. Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? Am Heart J 2006;151:257-64.
9. Fletcher J. Subgroup analyses: how to avoid being misled. BMJ 2007;335:96-7.
10. Tyroler H. Socioeconomic status in the epidemiology and treatment of hypertension. Hypertension 1989;13:194-7.
11. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative Group. Educational level and 5-year all-cause mortality in the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program. Hypertension 1987;9:641-6.
12. Mackenbach JP. Tackling inequalities in health: the need for building a systematic evidence base. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:162.
13. Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, et al.. Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews. BMJ 2004;328:1010-12.
14. Oliver S, Bagnall A, Thomas J, et al.. Randomised controlled trials for policy interventions: a review of reviews and meta-regression. Health Technol Assess 2010;14:1-165.
15. Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, et al.. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:502-12.
16. Cooper H, Hedges L, eds. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.
17. Brookes S, Whitley E, Peters T, et al.. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false positives and false negatives. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1-56.
18. Thompson S, Higgins J. Treating individuals 4: can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet 2005;365:341-6.
19. Sun X, Briel M, Walter S, et al.. Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ 2010;340:c117.
20. Davey Smith G, Egger M, Phillips A. Beyond the grand mean? BMJ 1997;315:1610-14.
21. Shepherd J, Harden A, Rees R, et al.. Young people and healthy eating: a systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators. Health Educ Res 2006;21:239-57.
22. Kavanagh J, Oliver S, Lorenc T, et al.. School-based cognitive-behavioural interventions: a systematic review of effects and inequalities. Health Sociol Rev 2009;18:61-78.
23. Oxman A, Guyatt G. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:78-84.
24. Greenhalgh T, Kristjansson E, Welch V. Realist review to understand the efficacy of school feeding programmes. BMJ 2007;335:858-61.
25. Kelly M, Stewart E, Morgan A, et al.. A conceptual framework for public health: NICE's emerging approach. Public Health 2009;123:e14-20.
|
Language: | English.
|
Document Type: | Theory and methods.
|
Journal Subset: | Public Health.
|
ISSN: | 0143-005X
|
NLM Journal Code: | i1p, 7909766
|
DOI Number: | https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech....- ouverture dans une nouvelle fenêtre
|
Annotation(s) | |
|
|