Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23430578›Full record

Trial reportPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2014

Evaluating the impact of implementation factors on family-based prevention programming: methods for strengthening causal inference.

D Max Crowley, Donna L Coffman, Mark E Feinberg, Mark T Greenberg, Richard L Spoth

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Does Binge-Watching eHealth Intervention Content Impact Outcomes?The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

D Max CrowleyDuke University, Durham, NC, USA. dmc27@duke.edu.
Donna L CoffmanThe Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Mark E FeinbergThe Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Mark T GreenbergThe Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Richard L SpothIowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.

Funding

Partnership Model for Diffusion of Proven PreventionR01DA013709 · NIDA · IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SPOTH, RICHARD · 2002 to 2017
$35.0M
THE REFINEMENT &APPLICATION OF MEDICAL DECISION MAKING IN PREVENTION SCIENCESP50DA010075 · NIDA · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-UNIV PARK · PI LANZA, STEPHANIE T · 1996 to 2014
$24.5M
Strengthening Benefit-Cost Analyses of Substance Abuse PreventionF32DA034501 · NIDA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CROWLEY, DANIEL MAX · 2012 to 2014
$150k
Causal Inference for Mediation Models in Substance Abuse Prevention ResearchR03DA026543 · NIDA · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI COFFMAN, DONNA LYNN · 2009 to 2010
$125k
NIDA NIH HHS F32 DA034501NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA010075NIDA NIH HHS P50-DA010075-15NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA013709NIDA NIH HHS R03 DA026543NIDA NIH HHS R03-DA026543NIDA NIH HHS T32-DA0176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite growing recognition of the important role implementation plays in successful prevention efforts, relatively little work has sought to demonstrate a causal relationship between implementation factors and participant outcomes. In turn, failure to explore the implementation-to-outcome link limits our understanding of the mechanisms essential to successful programming. This gap is partially due to the inability of current methodological procedures within prevention science to account for the multitude of confounders responsible for variation in implementation factors (i.e., selection bias). The current paper illustrates how propensity and marginal structural models can be used to improve causal inferences involving implementation factors not easily randomized (e.g., participant attendance). We first present analytic steps for simultaneously evaluating the impact of multiple implementation factors on prevention program outcome. Then, we demonstrate this approach for evaluating the impact of enrollment and attendance in a family program, over and above the impact of a school-based program, within PROSPER, a large-scale real-world prevention trial. Findings illustrate the capacity of this approach to successfully account for confounders that influence enrollment and attendance, thereby more accurately representing true causal relations. For instance, after accounting for selection bias, we observed a 5% reduction in the prevalence of 11th grade underage drinking for those who chose to receive a family program and school program compared to those who received only the school program. Further, we detected a 7% reduction in underage drinking for those with high attendance in the family program.

Indexed as

Community-Institutional RelationsRisk Reduction BehaviorAdolescentAdolescent BehaviorFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareProgram EvaluationSchool Health ServicesSubstance-Related Disorders

Identifiers

PMID23430578
PMCPMC3859719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.