To support claims that RCTs can reduce health disparities (i.e., are translational), it is imperative that methodologies exist to evaluate the tenability of external validity in RCTs when probabilistic sampling of participants is not employed. Typically, attempts at establishing post hoc external validity are limited to a few comparisons across convenience variables, which must be available in both sample and population. A Type 2 diabetes RCT was used as an example of a method that uses a geographic information system to assess external validity in the absence of a priori probabilistic community-wide diabetes risk sampling strategy.
A geographic information system, 2009-2013 county death certificate records, and 2013-2014 electronic medical records were used to identify community-wide diabetes prevalence. Color-coded diabetes density maps provided visual representation of these densities. Chi-square goodness of fit statistic/analysis tested the degree to which distribution of RCT participants varied across density classes compared to what would be expected, given simple random sampling of the county population. Analyses were conducted in 2016.
Diabetes prevalence areas as represented by death certificate and electronic medical records were distributed similarly. The simple random sample model was not a good fit for death certificate record (chi-square, 17.63; p=0.0001) and electronic medical record data (chi-square, 28.92; p<0.0001). Generally, RCT participants were oversampled in high-diabetes density areas.
Location is a highly reliable "principal variable" associated with health disparities. It serves as a directly measurable proxy for high-risk underserved communities, thus offering an effective and practical approach for examining external validity of RCTs.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 February 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Preventive Medicine
#5,191
of 5,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,168
of 324,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Preventive Medicine
#112
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 324,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
