Evaluating Public Health Interventions: 3. The Two-Stage Design for Confounding Bias Reduction—Having Your Cake and Eating It Two
7410 AJPH.2016.303250.pdf (560.9Kb)
Access StatusFull text of the requested work is not available in DASH at this time ("dark deposit"). For more information on dark deposits, see our FAQ.
MetadataShow full item record
CitationSpiegelman, Donna, Claudia L. Rivera-Rodriguez, and Sebastien Haneuse. 2016. “Evaluating Public Health Interventions: 3. The Two-Stage Design for Confounding Bias Reduction—Having Your Cake and Eating It Two.” American Journal of Public Health 106 (7): 1223–26. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2016.303250.
AbstractIn public health evaluations, confounding bias in the estimate of the intervention effect will typically threaten the validity of the findings. It is a common misperception that the only way to avoid this bias is to measure detailed, high-quality data on potential confounders for every intervention participant, but this strategy for adjusting for confounding bias is often infeasible.Rather than ignoring confounding altogether, the two-phase design and analysis-in which detailed high-quality confounding data are obtained among a small subsample-can be considered.We describe the two-stage design and analysis approach, and illustrate its use in the evaluation of an intervention conducted in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, of an enhanced community health worker program to improve antenatal care uptake.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41384710
- SPH Scholarly Articles