PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10814658

Ecological effects in multi-level studies.

T A Blakely·A J Woodward
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Multi-level research that attempts to describe ecological effects in themselves (for example, the effect on individual health from living in deprived communities), while also including individual level effects (for example, the effect of personal socioeconomic disadvantage), is now prominent in research on the socioeconomic determinants of health and disease. Such research often involves the application of advanced statistical multi-level methods. It is hypothesised that such research is at risk of reaching beyond an epidemiological understanding of what constitutes an ecological effect, and what sources of error may be influencing any observed ecological effect. This paper aims to present such an epidemiological understanding. Three basic types of ecological effect are described: a direct cross level effect (for example, living in a deprived community directly affects individual personal health), cross level effect modification (for example, living in a deprived community modifies the effect of individual socioeconomic status on individual health), and an indirect cross level effect (for example, living in a deprived community increases the risk of smoking, which in turn affects individual health). Sources of error and weaknesses in study design that may affect estimates of ecological effects include: a lack of variation in the ecological exposure (and health outcome) in the available data; not allowing for intraclass correlation; selection bias; confounding at both the ecological and individual level; misclassification of variables; misclassification of units of analysis and assignment of individuals to those units; model mis-specification; and multicollinearity. Identification of ecological effects requires the minimisation of these sources of error, and a study design that captures sufficient variation in the ecological exposure of interest.

Explore related subjects

BiasConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicData CollectionData Interpretation, StatisticalEnvironmentEpidemiologic Research DesignHumansSocioeconomic FactorsJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T A Blakely, A J Woodward. 2000. Ecological effects in multi-level studies.. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.54.5.367

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2002

On the use of familial aggregation in population-based case probands for calculating penetrance.

BACKGROUND: Estimating the lifetime risk associated with (i.e., the penetrance of) genetic abnormalities that predispose individuals to cancer is important for genetic counseling. (Penetrance may be estimated from the degree of familial aggregation of cancer, that is, the extent to which cancers cluster in families.) Early penetrance studies of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations used high-risk families with multiple cases of breast cancer, a study design that led to very high penetrance estimates. However, such studies were subject to potential ascertainment biases. To offset such biases, recent studies have used data from family members of probands ascertained from population-based incident cases of cancer. The use of case probands is, however, also subject to bias because all risk factors are over-represented in case patients. To draw attention to this problem, literature on the penetrance of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers is reviewed. METHODS: A theory is presented to show that the use of case probands is itself biased, leading to inflated penetrance estimates. The strategy is unbiased only if all carriers share an identical risk. Any unexplained heterogeneity of risk caused by unknown genetic or shared environmental factors within families leads to an inflated estimate of penetrance. RESULTS: Eight published studies using population-based methods are reviewed. All but one of the family-based studies used case probands. CONCLUSIONS: Penetrance estimates from case proband studies must be inflated if other factors influence breast cancer risk in addition to the specific genetic abnormality. Thus, women with such genetic abnormalities and a strong family history of breast cancer are likely to possess a much higher risk for breast cancer than women with such abnormalities but without a strong family history. Methodologic techniques to improve the prediction of cancer risk are needed.

Bias↗