logging in or signing up Gortmaker1 Obesity Flemel Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 272 Category: Science & Tech.. License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: August 06, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript Slide1: Childhood Obesity Scenario: Quasi-Experiments and Natural Experiments Versus RCTs: Childhood Obesity Scenario: Quasi-Experiments and Natural Experiments Versus RCTs Steven Gortmaker, Ph.D. Harvard School of Public Health /Harvard Prevention Research Center Definitions: Definitions Quasi-experiments: can have all the attributes of randomized controlled trial with pretest and posttest data; key difference: no random assignment to intervention versus control Natural experiment: can have all the attributes of randomized controlled trial with pretest and posttest data; key differences: no random assignment experimenter does not control intervention The Research Question: The Research Question Can be same in Quasi-experiment and Natural experiment as in Randomized Controlled Trial However, random assignment can set limits: Long lead time for the study/results; may preclude rapid evaluations of innovations Funding agency often pays for the intervention - may preclude evaluations of expensive or complex interventions or policy changes Evaluation Data: Evaluation Data Quasi/Natural Experiment Quasi-experiment has similar data requirements to RCT Natural experiments may need to rely on surveillance data Group Randomized Trial Want pre-post data on key measures Internal Validity: Control of Selection/Confounding: Internal Validity: Control of Selection/Confounding Quasi/Natural Experiment Success dependent on selection of control sample (e.g. propensity matching) Multiple pre-intervention and post-intervention data points can strengthen design Group Randomized Trial The major strength of RCT’s Multiple pre-intervention and post-intervention data points can strengthen design Slide7: Hypothetical Quasi Experimental Design to Evaluate Impact of School Food Service Change, With Single Data Point Pre and Post-Intervention Year Mean BMI Intervention Begins Control Intervention Slide8: Hypothetical Quasi Experimental Design to Evaluate Impact of School Food Service Change, With Multiple Data Points Pre and Post-Intervention Year Mean BMI Intervention Begins Control Intervention Loss to Follow-up: Loss to Follow-up Quasi/Natural Experiment Similar concerns to RCTS Can study predictors of loss, model loss Natural experiment: a concern is lack of detailed baseline data Group Randomized Trial As with Quasi-experiment, can study predictors of loss, model loss External Validity: Generalizability : External Validity: Generalizability Quasi/Natural Experiment Quasi-experiment: similar to RCT but may have broader sample of participant sites Natural experiment: concerns re selection of intervention sites Group Randomized Trial Participating sites may differ substantially from target population As with Quasi-experiment, can study participant sites versus non-participants Intervention Costs : Intervention Costs Quasi/Natural Experiment Quasi-experiment: can be similar to RCT, or can capitalize on other funding Natural experiment: intervention costs generally not borne by funding agency Group Randomized Trial Intervention costs often borne by funding agency; can limit cost of intervention program If costs borne by outside agency, difficulty with randomization (but not always!) Evaluation Costs : Evaluation Costs Quasi/Natural Experiment Quasi-experiment: can be similar to RCT re data collection Natural experiment: can be less expensive by using extant data Group Randomized Trial Similar data collection costs re Quasi-experiment. A hypothesis: typically data collection costs in RCTs are much larger than intervention costs Summary of Trade-Offs : Summary of Trade-Offs Quasi/Natural Experiment Worse internal validity; but more data points can help Some limited generalizability - particularly in natural experiments Potential to study more innovative, expensive, difficult to implement programs/policies Group Randomized Trial Better internal validity Often limited generalizabilty; but potential to improve More limited programs/policies to study with RCT due to costs and difficulty of randomizing You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.
Gortmaker1 Obesity Flemel Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 272 Category: Science & Tech.. License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: August 06, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript Slide1: Childhood Obesity Scenario: Quasi-Experiments and Natural Experiments Versus RCTs: Childhood Obesity Scenario: Quasi-Experiments and Natural Experiments Versus RCTs Steven Gortmaker, Ph.D. Harvard School of Public Health /Harvard Prevention Research Center Definitions: Definitions Quasi-experiments: can have all the attributes of randomized controlled trial with pretest and posttest data; key difference: no random assignment to intervention versus control Natural experiment: can have all the attributes of randomized controlled trial with pretest and posttest data; key differences: no random assignment experimenter does not control intervention The Research Question: The Research Question Can be same in Quasi-experiment and Natural experiment as in Randomized Controlled Trial However, random assignment can set limits: Long lead time for the study/results; may preclude rapid evaluations of innovations Funding agency often pays for the intervention - may preclude evaluations of expensive or complex interventions or policy changes Evaluation Data: Evaluation Data Quasi/Natural Experiment Quasi-experiment has similar data requirements to RCT Natural experiments may need to rely on surveillance data Group Randomized Trial Want pre-post data on key measures Internal Validity: Control of Selection/Confounding: Internal Validity: Control of Selection/Confounding Quasi/Natural Experiment Success dependent on selection of control sample (e.g. propensity matching) Multiple pre-intervention and post-intervention data points can strengthen design Group Randomized Trial The major strength of RCT’s Multiple pre-intervention and post-intervention data points can strengthen design Slide7: Hypothetical Quasi Experimental Design to Evaluate Impact of School Food Service Change, With Single Data Point Pre and Post-Intervention Year Mean BMI Intervention Begins Control Intervention Slide8: Hypothetical Quasi Experimental Design to Evaluate Impact of School Food Service Change, With Multiple Data Points Pre and Post-Intervention Year Mean BMI Intervention Begins Control Intervention Loss to Follow-up: Loss to Follow-up Quasi/Natural Experiment Similar concerns to RCTS Can study predictors of loss, model loss Natural experiment: a concern is lack of detailed baseline data Group Randomized Trial As with Quasi-experiment, can study predictors of loss, model loss External Validity: Generalizability : External Validity: Generalizability Quasi/Natural Experiment Quasi-experiment: similar to RCT but may have broader sample of participant sites Natural experiment: concerns re selection of intervention sites Group Randomized Trial Participating sites may differ substantially from target population As with Quasi-experiment, can study participant sites versus non-participants Intervention Costs : Intervention Costs Quasi/Natural Experiment Quasi-experiment: can be similar to RCT, or can capitalize on other funding Natural experiment: intervention costs generally not borne by funding agency Group Randomized Trial Intervention costs often borne by funding agency; can limit cost of intervention program If costs borne by outside agency, difficulty with randomization (but not always!) Evaluation Costs : Evaluation Costs Quasi/Natural Experiment Quasi-experiment: can be similar to RCT re data collection Natural experiment: can be less expensive by using extant data Group Randomized Trial Similar data collection costs re Quasi-experiment. A hypothesis: typically data collection costs in RCTs are much larger than intervention costs Summary of Trade-Offs : Summary of Trade-Offs Quasi/Natural Experiment Worse internal validity; but more data points can help Some limited generalizability - particularly in natural experiments Potential to study more innovative, expensive, difficult to implement programs/policies Group Randomized Trial Better internal validity Often limited generalizabilty; but potential to improve More limited programs/policies to study with RCT due to costs and difficulty of randomizing