IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2016.303068_0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating public health interventions: 2. Stepping up to routine public health evaluation with the stepped wedge design

Author

Listed:
  • Spiegelman, D.

Abstract

In a stepped wedge design (SWD), an intervention is rolled out in a staggered manner over time, in groups of experimental units, so that by the end, all units experience the intervention. For example, in the MaxART study, the date at which to offer universal antiretroviral therapy to otherwise ineligible clients is being randomly assignedin nine"steps" of four months duration so that after three years, all 14 facilities in northern and central Swaziland will be offering early treatment. Inthecommonalternative, the cluster randomized trial (CRT), experimental units are randomly allocated on a single common start date to the interventions to be compared. Often, the SWD is more feasible than the CRT, both for practical and ethical reasons, but takes longer to complete.The SWD permits both within- and between- unit comparisons,while the CRT only allows between-unit comparisons. Thus, confounding bias with respect totime-invariant factors tends to be lower in an SWD than a CRT, but the SWD cannot as readily control for confounding by time-varying factors. SWDs have generally morestatisticalpowerthanCRTs, especially as the intraunit correlation and the number of participants within unit increases. Software for both designs are available, although for a more limited set of SWD scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Spiegelman, D., 2016. "Evaluating public health interventions: 2. Stepping up to routine public health evaluation with the stepped wedge design," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(3), pages 453-457.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303068_0
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303068
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303068
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303068?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303068_0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.