Liao 2010a.
Methods |
Study design: controlled before‐after Sampling frame: combination of banks of telephone numbers and listed telephones (target group surnames) Sampling method: random digit Collection method: telephone survey (in‐person survey in Lowell, MA) (n = 98,206) Description of the community coalition: Study authors state that each coalition comprised a community‐based organization and at least 3 other organizations, of which 1 was a local or state health department, university, or research organization |
|
Participants |
Communities: Los Angeles County and Orange County, CA; Santa Clara County, CA; Lowell, MA; and King County, WA Country: USA Ages included in assessment: 18 and older Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: communities with large populations of Asian Americans Intervention community (population size): unknown Comparison community (population size): unknown |
|
Interventions |
Name of intervention: Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) Theory: Social‐Ecologic Model Aim: to reduce health disparities among targeted groups (reduction of prevalence of current smoking) Description of costs and resources: unknown Components of the intervention: Interventions included health communications campaigns and health education and promotion programs and varied among communities Start date: 2002 Duration: 60 months |
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes and measures: prevalence of current smoking from survey data (logistic regression used to examine trends) Time points: annual risk factor surveys (2002 to 2006) |
|
Notes | Funding source: government | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | High risk | Not randomized |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Not randomized |
Baseline outcome measurement similar | Low risk | Same survey |
Baseline characteristics similar | High risk | Baseline differences noted |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Population‐based survey |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Adequately reported |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Telephone survey respondents were not necessarily aware of intervention, but data collectors were aware |
Protection against contamination | Low risk | Intervention sites in different cities |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Relevant outcomes reported |