Effectiveness of a High School Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/65153/1/j.1530-0277.1996.tb05253.x.pd

Can Research Assessments Themselves Cause Bias in Behaviour Change Trials? A Systematic Review of Evidence from Solomon 4-Group Studies

BACKGROUND: The possible effects of research assessments on participant behaviour have attracted research interest, especially in studies with behavioural interventions and/or outcomes. Assessments may introduce bias in randomised controlled trials by altering receptivity to intervention in experimental groups and differentially impacting on the behaviour of control groups. In a Solomon 4-group design, participants are randomly allocated to one of four arms: (1) assessed experimental group; (2) unassessed experimental group (3) assessed control group; or (4) unassessed control group. This design provides a test of the internal validity of effect sizes obtained in conventional two-group trials by controlling for the effects of baseline assessment, and assessing interactions between the intervention and baseline assessment. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate evidence from Solomon 4-group studies with behavioural outcomes that baseline research assessments themselves can introduce bias into trials. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Electronic databases were searched, supplemented by citation searching. Studies were eligible if they reported appropriately analysed results in peer-reviewed journals and used Solomon 4-group designs in non-laboratory settings with behavioural outcome measures and sample sizes of 20 per group or greater. Ten studies from a range of applied areas were included. There was inconsistent evidence of main effects of assessment, sparse evidence of interactions with behavioural interventions, and a lack of convincing data in relation to the research question for this review. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: There were too few high quality completed studies to infer conclusively that biases stemming from baseline research assessments do or do not exist. There is, therefore a need for new rigorous Solomon 4-group studies that are purposively designed to evaluate the potential for research assessments to cause bias in behaviour change trials

Strength Training for Arthritis Trial (START): design and rationale

Background Muscle loss and fat gain contribute to the disability, pain, and morbidity associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA), and thigh muscle weakness is an independent and modifiable risk factor for it. However, while all published treatment guidelines recommend muscle strengthening exercise to combat loss of muscle mass and strength in knee OA patients, previous strength training studies either used intensities or loads below recommended levels for healthy adults or were generally short, lasting only 6 to 24 weeks. The efficacy of high-intensity strength training in improving OA symptoms, slowing progression, and affecting the underlying mechanisms has not been examined due to the unsubstantiated belief that it might exacerbate symptoms. We hypothesize that in addition to short-term clinical benefits, combining greater duration with high-intensity strength training will alter thigh composition sufficiently to attain long-term reductions in knee-joint forces, lower pain levels, decrease inflammatory cytokines, and slow OA progression. Methods/Design This is an assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial. The study population consists of 372 older (age ≥ 55 yrs) ambulatory, community-dwelling persons with: (1) mild-to-moderate medial tibiofemoral OA (Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) = 2 or 3); (2) knee neutral or varus aligned knee ( -2° valgus ≤ angle ≤ 10° varus); (3) 20 kg.m-2 ≥ BMI ≤ 45 kg.m-2; and (3) no participation in a formal strength-training program for more than 30 minutes per week within the past 6 months. Participants are randomized to one of 3 groups: high-intensity strength training (75-90% 1Repetition Maximum (1RM)); low-intensity strength training (30-40%1RM); or healthy living education. The primary clinical aim is to compare the interventions’ effects on knee pain, and the primary mechanistic aim is to compare their effects on knee-joint compressive forces during walking, a mechanism that affects the OA disease pathway. Secondary aims will compare the interventions’ effects on additional clinical measures of disease severity (e.g., function, mobility); disease progression measured by x-ray; thigh muscle and fat volume, measured by computed tomography (CT); components of thigh muscle function, including hip abductor strength and quadriceps strength, and power; additional measures of knee-joint loading; inflammatory and OA biomarkers; and health-related quality of life. Discussion Test-retest reliability for the thigh CT scan was: total thigh volume, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.99; total fat volume, ICC = 0.99, and total muscle volume, ICC = 0.99. ICC for both isokinetic concentric knee flexion and extension strength was 0.93, and for hip-abductor concentric strength was 0.99. The reliability of our 1RM testing was: leg press, ICC = 0.95; leg curl, ICC = 0.99; and leg extension, ICC = 0.98. Results of this trial will provide critically needed guidance for clinicians in a variety of health professions who prescribe and oversee treatment and prevention of OA-related complications. Given the prevalence and impact of OA and the widespread availability of this intervention, assessing the efficacy of optimal strength training has the potential for immediate and vital clinical impact