Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27056683›Full record

ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2016

Changing the environment to improve population health: a framework for considering exposure in natural experimental studies.

David K Humphreys, Jenna Panter, Shannon Sahlqvist, Anna Goodman, David Ogilvie

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A Time-Based Objective Measure of Exposure to the Food Environment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    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.

David K HumphreysDepartment of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK MRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jenna PanterMRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Shannon SahlqvistMRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research (C-PAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Anna GoodmanMRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9995-6659
David OgilvieMRC Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

British Heart FoundationDepartment of Health 09/3001/06Department of Health PDF-2010-03-15Department of Health PDF-2012-05-157Medical Research Council MC_UP_1001/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is renewed optimism regarding the use of natural experimental studies to generate evidence as to the effectiveness of population health interventions. Natural experimental studies capitalise on environmental and policy events that alter exposure to certain social, economic or environmental factors that influence health. Natural experimental studies can be useful for examining the impact of changes to 'upstream' determinants, which may not be amenable to controlled experiments. However, while natural experiments provide opportunities to generate evidence, they often present certain conceptual and methodological obstacles. Population health interventions that alter the physical or social environment are usually administered broadly across populations and communities. The breadth of these interventions means that variation in exposure, uptake and impact may be complex. Yet many evaluations of natural experiments focus narrowly on identifying suitable 'exposed' and 'unexposed' populations for comparison. In this paper, we discuss conceptual and analytical issues relating to defining and measuring exposure to interventions in this context, including how recent advances in technology may enable researchers to better understand the nature of population exposure to changes in the built environment. We argue that when it is unclear whether populations are exposed to an intervention, it may be advantageous to supplement traditional impact assessments with observational approaches that investigate differing levels of exposure. We suggest that an improved understanding of changes in exposure will assist the investigation of the impact of complex natural experiments in population health.

Indexed as

Population HealthSocial EnvironmentHealth PromotionHumansResearch DesignEnvironmental epidemiologyNeighborhood/placeOutcome Research EvaluationPUBLIC HEALTHRESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID27056683
PMCPMC5390281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.