PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1888134

Long-term prospective studies: the only solution?

D Kromhout·C de Lezenne Coulander·B P Bloemberg
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

One of the advantages of prospective studies in nutritional epidemiology is that dietary patterns and nutrient intake data are collected before the occurrence of the disease. With such a design it is possible to study the contribution of dietary variables in explaining the occurrence of diseases between different cultures and within populations. In order to make a good estimate of the relation between a dietary variable and the occurrence of a disease in long-term prospective studies, it is necessary to have insight in the changes of dietary variables with time. For prospective cohort studies also information about the reproducibility of a dietary variable is needed. Long-term prospective studies with repeated dietary measures provide a powerful tool in studying diet-disease relations, but practical limitations may prevent the implementation of such designs.

Explore related subjects

Cohort StudiesDietHealth StatusHumansNutritional Physiological PhenomenaProspective StudiesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D Kromhout, C de Lezenne Coulander, B P Bloemberg. 1991. Long-term prospective studies: the only solution?. https://doi.org/10.1159/000177687

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

The influence of standard of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how frequently physicians lose medical malpractice cases despite providing standard care and to assess whether severity of patient injury influences the frequency of plaintiff payment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Physicians from the state of New Jersey insured by one insurance company from 1977 to 1992. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 12,829 physicians involved in 8231 closed malpractice cases. MEASUREMENTS: Physician care and claim severity were prospectively determined by the insurance company using a standard process. RESULTS: Physician care was considered defensible in 62% of the cases and indefensible in 25% of the cases, in almost half of which the physician admitted error. In the remaining 13% of cases, it was unclear whether physician care was defensible. The plaintiff received a payment in 43% of all cases. Payment was made 21% of the time if physician care was considered defensible, 91% if considered indefensible, and 59% if considered unclear. The severity of the injury was classified as low, medium, or high in 28%, 47%, and 25% of the cases, respectively. Severity of injury had a small but significant association (P < 0.001) with the frequency of plaintiff payment (low severity, 39%; medium severity, 43%; and high severity, 47%). The severity of injury was not associated with the payment rate in cases resolved by a jury (low severity, 23%; medium severity, 25%; and high severity, 23%). CONCLUSIONS: In malpractice cases, physicians provide care that is usually defensible. The defensibility of the case and not the severity of patient injury predominantly influences whether any payment is made. Even in cases that require a jury verdict, the severity of patient injury has little effect on whether any payment is made. Our findings suggest that unjustified payments are probably uncommon.

Cohort Studies↗