Dataset Information

Efficiency or equity? Simulating the impact of high-risk and population intervention strategies for the prevention of disease.

ABSTRACT: Maximizing both efficiency and equity are core considerations for population health. These considerations can result in tension in population health science as we seek to improve overall population health while achieving equitable health distributions within populations. Limited work has explored empirically the consequences of different population health intervention strategies on the burden of disease and on within- and between-group differences in disease. To address this gap, we compared the impact of four simulated interventions using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. In particular, we focus on assessing how population and high-risk primary prevention and population and high-risk secondary interventions efforts to reduce smoking behavior influence systolic blood pressure (SBP) and hypertension, and how such strategies influence inequalities in SBP by income. The greatest reductions in SBP mean and standard deviation resulted from the population secondary prevention. High-risk primary and secondary prevention and population secondary prevention programs all yielded substantial reductions in hypertension prevalence. The effect of population primary prevention did little to decrease population SBP mean and standard deviation, as well as hypertension prevalence. Both high-risk strategies had a larger impact in the low-income population, leading to the greatest narrowing the income-related gap in disease. The population prevention strategies had a larger impact in the high-income population. Population health approaches must consider the potential impact on both the whole population and also on those with different levels of risk for disease within a population, including those in under-represented or under-served groups.

SUBMITTER: Platt JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5769005 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficiency or equity? Simulating the impact of high-risk and population intervention strategies for the prevention of disease.

Platt Jonathan M JM Keyes Katherine M KM Galea Sandro S

SSM - population health 20161119

Maximizing both efficiency and equity are core considerations for population health. These considerations can result in tension in population health science as we seek to improve overall population health while achieving equitable health distributions within populations. Limited work has explored empirically the consequences of different population health intervention strategies on the burden of disease and on within- and between-group differences in disease. To address this gap, we compared the ...[more]

PMID: 29349199

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBenefit-targeted statin prescribing may be superior to risk-targeted statin prescribing (the current standard), but the impact and efficiency of this approach are unclear.Methods and resultsWe analyzed the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) using an open-source model (the Prevention Impact and Efficiency Model) to compare targeting of statin therapy according to expected benefit (benefit-targeted) versus baseline risk (risk-targeted) in terms of projected population-level impact and efficiency. Impact was defined as relative % reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the US population for the given strategy compared to current statin treatment patterns; and efficiency as the number needed to treat over 10 years (NNT10, average and maximum) to prevent each atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event. Benefit-targeted moderate-intensity statin therapy at a treatment threshold of 2.3% expected 10-year absolute risk reduction could produce a 5.7% impact (95% confidence interval, 4.8-6.7). This is approximately equivalent to the potential impact of risk-targeted therapy at a treatment threshold of 5% 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (5.6% impact [4.7-6.6]). Whereas the estimated maximum NNT10 is much improved for benefit-targeted versus risk-targeted therapy at these equivalent-impact thresholds (43.5 vs 180), the average NNT10 is nearly equivalent (24.2 vs 24.6). Reaching 10% impact (half the Healthy People 2020 impact objective, loosely defined) is theoretically possible with benefit-targeted moderate-intensity statins of persons with expected absolute risk reduction >2.3% if we expand age eligibility and account for treatment of all persons with diabetes mellitus or with low-density lipoprotein >190 mg/dL (impact=12.4%; average NNT10=23.0).ConclusionsBenefit-based targeting of statin therapy provides modest gains in efficiency over risk-based prescribing and could theoretically help attain approximately half of the Healthy People 2020 impact goal with reasonable efficiency.

Project description:BackgroundObesity and depression are two prevalent conditions that are costly to individuals and society. The bidirectional association of obesity with depression, in which unhealthy dietary patterns may play an important role, has been well established. Few experimental studies have been conducted to investigate whether supplementing specific nutrients or improving diet and food-related behaviors can prevent depression in overweight persons.Method/designThe MooDFOOD prevention trial examines the feasibility and effectiveness of two different nutritional strategies [multi-nutrient supplementation and food-related behavioral change therapy (FBC)] to prevent depression in individuals who are overweight and have elevated depressive symptoms but who are not currently or in the last 6 months meeting criteria for an episode of major depressive disorder (MDD). The randomized controlled prevention trial has a two-by-two factorial design: participants are randomized to daily multi-nutrient supplement (omega-3 fatty acids, calcium, selenium, B-11 vitamin and D-3 vitamin) versus placebo, and/or FBC therapy sessions versus usual care. Interventions last 12 months. In total 1000 participants aged 18-75 years with body mass index between 25-40 kg/m(2) and with a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score ≥ 5 will be recruited at four study sites in four European countries. Baseline and follow-up assessments take place at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary endpoint is the onset of an episode of MDD, assessed according to DSM-IV based criteria using the MINI 5.0 interview. Depressive symptoms, anxiety, food and eating behavior, physical activity and health related quality of life are secondary outcomes. During the intervention, compliance, adverse events and potentially mediating variables are carefully monitored.DiscussionThe trial aims to provide a better understanding of the causal role of specific nutrients, overall diet, and food-related behavior change with respect to the incidence of MDD episodes. This knowledge will be used to develop and disseminate innovative evidence-based, feasible, and effective nutritional public health strategies for the prevention of clinical depression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov. Number of identification: NCT02529423 . August 2015.

Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating worldwide impact but most prominent was its effect on marginalised, underserved and equity-deserving populations. Social media arose as an important platform from which health organisations could rapidly disseminate information to equity-deserving populations about COVID-19 risks and events, provide instructions on how to mitigate those risks, motivate compliance with health directives, address false information, provide the opportunity for engagement and immediate feedback. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesise the academic and grey literature on equity-informed social media risk communication strategies developed during the pandemic.DesignThe review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework and focused on the research question: What are the promising principles, processes, and practices for producing equity-informed social media risk communications?Data sourcesCINAHL Complete, MEDLINE (OVID), Business Source Complete, EMBASE database OVID, Scopus and PubMed's curated COVID-19 literature hub: LitCovid, PsycINFO OVID were searched using terms related to access to health services, social media, risk communication, misinformation, community engagement, infectious disease, pandemics and marginalisation, supplemented by grey literature from relevant health organisations.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies were eligible if the population of interest was an equity-deserving population, the concept discussed was COVID-19 risk communication and the article was published in English between January 2019 and December 2022.Data extraction and synthesisCOVIDENCE facilitated screening and extraction. Charted data were thematically analysed following Braun and Clarke's phased process. Preliminary findings were collaboratively discussed with representatives from health agencies and community organisations focused on serving equity-deserving groups.Results12 studies were included. In terms of principles and process, studies emphasised the need to collaboratively create plans for message construction and targeted dissemination using a risk communication framework, capitalise on access to community resources and pre-established communication mediums and be considerate of population-specific needs and concerns. Practice entails careful consideration of communication mediums, language usage, communication frequency and evaluation.ConclusionThis scoping review provides valuable insights for health agencies and community organisations in developing principles, processes and practices to equitably communicate risk information through social media. Engagement with stakeholders further refined and confirmed the findings, offering insights for future crisis communication strategies.

Project description:IntroductionThere is limited evidence on the impact of centralization of cancer treatment services on patient travel burden and access to treatment. Using prostate cancer surgery as an example, this national study analysis aims to simulate the effect of different centralization scenarios on the number of center closures, patient travel times, and equity in access.MethodsWe used patient-level data on all men (n = 19,256) undergoing radical prostatectomy in the English National Health Service between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014, and considered three scenarios for centralization of prostate cancer surgery services A: procedure volume, B: availability of specialized services, and C: optimization of capacity. The probability of patients travelling to each of the remaining centers in the choice set was predicted using a conditional logit model, based on preferences revealed through actual hospital selections. Multivariable linear regression analysed the impact on travel time according to patient characteristics.ResultsScenarios A, B, and C resulted in the closure of 28, 24, and 37 of the 65 radical prostatectomy centers, respectively, affecting 3993 (21%), 5763 (30%), and 7896 (41%) of the men in the study. Despite similar numbers of center closures the expected average increase on travel time was very different for scenario B (+15 minutes) and A (+28 minutes). A distance minimization approach, assigning patients to their next nearest center, with patient preferences not considered, estimated a lower impact on travel burden in all scenarios. The additional travel burden on older, sicker, less affluent patients was evident, but where significant, the absolute difference was very small.ConclusionThe study provides an innovative simulation approach using national patient-level datasets, patient preferences based on actual hospital selections, and personal characteristics to inform health service planning. With this approach, we demonstrated for prostate cancer surgery that three different centralization scenarios would lead to similar number of center closures but to different increases in patient travel time, whilst all having a minimal impact on equity.

Dataset Information

Efficiency or equity? Simulating the impact of high-risk and population intervention strategies for the prevention of disease.

Publications

Efficiency or equity? Simulating the impact of high-risk and population intervention strategies for the prevention of disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets