Evaluation of community-wide interventions: The ecologic case-referent study design

In a setting of long-standing, community-wide and generally accepted prevention activities like youth health care services in The Netherlands, evaluative research in the form of experimental studies is hardly possible. Furthermore, as most interventions will bear fruit only after several years and the effects are often described in rather vague terms, even nonexperimental study designs are fraught with possible difficulties. Although a study design using aggregate data is generally considered inferior or 'incomplete', in many cases, especially in health services research, this approach can be the only one feasible to evaluate the effectiveness of preventive programmes and interventions. In this article we present the ecologic case-referent design as a potentially expedient and valid method for estimating the ecologic effect of a population-wide intervention on the outcome rate in those populations. In this case-referent design, many variables are measured at the individual level, whereas the main exposure variable is measured at an aggregate or ecologic level. Using recently published studies as an example, the advantages and drawbacks of the design are discussed using the randomised controlled trial design as the referent study design

Pesticide exposure: the hormonal function of the female reproductive system disrupted?

Some pesticides may interfere with the female hormonal function, which may lead to negative effects on the reproductive system through disruption of the hormonal balance necessary for proper functioning. Previous studies primarily focused on interference with the estrogen and/or androgen receptor, but the hormonal function may be disrupted in many more ways through pesticide exposure. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the various ways in which pesticides may disrupt the hormonal function of the female reproductive system and in particular the ovarian cycle. Disruption can occur in all stages of hormonal regulation: 1. hormone synthesis; 2. hormone release and storage; 3. hormone transport and clearance; 4. hormone receptor recognition and binding; 5. hormone postreceptor activation; 6. the thyroid function; and 7. the central nervous system. These mechanisms are described for effects of pesticide exposure in vitro and on experimental animals in vivo. For the latter, potential effects of endocrine disrupting pesticides on the female reproductive system, i.e. modulation of hormone concentrations, ovarian cycle irregularities, and impaired fertility, are also reviewed. In epidemiological studies, exposure to pesticides has been associated with menstrual cycle disturbances, reduced fertility, prolonged time-to-pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, stillbirths, and developmental defects, which may or may not be due to disruption of the female hormonal function. Because pesticides comprise a large number of distinct substances with dissimilar structures and diverse toxicity, it is most likely that several of the above-mentioned mechanisms are involved in the pathophysiological pathways explaining the role of pesticide exposure in ovarian cycle disturbances, ultimately leading to fertility problems and other reproductive effects. In future research, information on the ways in which pesticides may disrupt the hormonal function as described in this review, can be used to generate specific hypotheses for studies on the effects of pesticides on the ovarian cycle, both in toxicological and epidemiological settings

Excellent adherence and no contamination by physiotherapists involved in a randomized controlled trial on reactivation of COPD patients: a qualitative process evaluation study

Contains fulltext : 107813.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)OBJECTIVE: To assess the adherence of physiotherapists to the study protocol and the occurrence of contamination bias during the course of a randomized controlled trial with a recruitment period of 2 years and a 1-year follow-up (COPE-II study). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In the COPE-II study, intervention patients received a standardized physiotherapeutic reactivation intervention (COPE-active) and control patients received usual care. The latter could include regular physiotherapy treatment. Information about the adherence of physiotherapists with the study protocol was collected by performing a single interview with both intervention and control patients. Patients were only interviewed when they were currently receiving physiotherapy. Interviews were performed during two separate time periods, 10 months apart. Nine characteristics of the COPE-active intervention were scored. Scores were converted into percentages (0%, no aspects of COPE-active; 100%, full implementation of COPE-active). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were interviewed (first period: intervention n = 14 and control n = 10; second period: intervention n = 18 and control n = 9). Adherence with the COPE-active protocol was high (median scores: period 1, 96.8%; period 2, 92.1%), and large contrasts in scores between the intervention and control group were found (period 1: 96.8% versus 22.7%; period 2: 92.1% versus 25.0%). The scores of patients treated by seven physiotherapists who trained patients of both study groups were similar to the scores of patients treated by physiotherapists who only trained patients of one study group. CONCLUSION: The adherence of physiotherapists with the COPE-active protocol was high, remained unchanged over time, and no obvious contamination bias occurred

An investigation of clinical studies suggests those with multiple objectives should have at least 90% power for each endpoint.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many clinical studies have more than one objective, either formally or informally, but this is not usually taken into account in the determination of the sample size. We investigated the overall power of a study, that is, the probability that all the objectives will be met. METHODS: We calculated the overall power in the case that the study has two primary outcome variables and in the case that one outcome variable is evaluated on two subsets, in particular, the Per Protocol group and the Intention to Treat group. RESULTS: A power of 80% for each of the two end points leads to poor power for the end points combined. However, a power of 90% preserves better the overall power. The power of the Per Protocol analysis can be higher or lower than the power of the Intention to Treat analysis. CONCLUSION: Power should be calculated for all end points combined, and it should be at least 90% for each primary end point. If the sample size for the intention-to-treat analysis is determined by adding a percentage of "nonevaluable subjects" to the sample size required for the per protocol analysis, then this may lead to an underpowered study

Pot of gold — Irish farmers seeking law change to get in on medical cannabis trade.

They want to diversify so the plant can be cultivated for medical purposes – which is a growing industry worldwide – rather than for illegal recreational trade