↓ Skip to main content

Estimating Intervention Effects of Prevention Programs: Accounting for Noncompliance

Overview of attention for article published in Prevention Science, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Estimating Intervention Effects of Prevention Programs: Accounting for Noncompliance
Published in
Prevention Science, October 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11121-008-0104-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth A. Stuart, Deborah F. Perry, Huynh-Nhu Le, Nicholas S. Ialongo

Abstract

Individuals not fully complying with their assigned treatments is a common problem encountered in randomized evaluations of behavioral interventions. Treatment group members rarely attend all sessions or do all "required" activities; control group members sometimes find ways to participate in aspects of the intervention. As a result, there is often interest in estimating both the effect of being assigned to participate in the intervention, as well as the impact of actually participating and doing all of the required activities. Methods known broadly as "complier average causal effects" (CACE) or "instrumental variables" (IV) methods have been developed to estimate this latter effect, but they are more commonly applied in medical and treatment research. Since the use of these statistical techniques in prevention trials has been less widespread, many prevention scientists may not be familiar with the underlying assumptions and limitations of CACE and IV approaches. This paper provides an introduction to these methods, described in the context of randomized controlled trials of two preventive interventions: one for perinatal depression among at-risk women and the other for aggressive disruptive behavior in children. Through these case studies, the underlying assumptions and limitations of these methods are highlighted.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 4%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 158 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 27%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 10%
Other 12 7%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 22 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 27%
Social Sciences 29 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 30 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2014.
All research outputs
#5,761,455
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#363
of 1,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,511
of 90,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 90,430 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.