首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
检索        


Does selective migration bias the health impact assessment of urban regeneration programmes in cross-sectional studies? Findings from a Dutch case study
Institution:1. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands;2. Department of Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health (APH) research institute, Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;3. Tranzo, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tilburg, Tilburg, the Netherlands;4. Utrecht Municipality, Department of Public Health, Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Abstract:We examined if the assessment of the health impact of a national Dutch regeneration programme depends on using either a repeated cross-sectional or longitudinal study design. This is important as only the latter design can incorporate migration patterns. For both designs, we compared trends in medication use between target and control districts. We found differences in medication use trends to be modest under the longitudinal design, and not demonstrable under the repeated cross-sectional design. The observed differences were hardly influenced by migration patterns. We conclude that in the Netherlands migration patterns had little effect on the health impact assessment of this national urban regeneration programme, so either the cross-sectional or longitudinal evaluation study design will do.
Keywords:Urban regeneration  Population health intervention  Selective migration  Evaluation  Longitudinal design  Repeated cross-sectional design
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号