Skip to main content

Some NLM-NCBI services and products are experiencing heavy traffic, which may affect performance and availability. We apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience. For assistance, please contact our Help Desk at info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
letter
. 2004 Sep;94(9):1474. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.9.1474

TREND: AN IMPORTANT STEP, BUT NOT ENOUGH

David A Dzewaltowski 1, Paul A Estabrooks 1, Lisa M Klesges 1, Russell E Glasgow 1
PMCID: PMC1448470  PMID: 15333294

Des Jarlais et al. provide an important service by publishing the TREND statement, which lists data reporting recommendations for behavioral and public health interventions.1 We commend the authors for addressing such issues as information on the target population, recruitment criteria, methods of imputing missing data, comparison of the study population to the target population of interest, and testing of causal pathways.

These criteria, although important, are not enough to realize the TREND group’s purpose of creating generalizable knowledge. The goal of public health interventions is to make a difference on a population level (or in a representative sample or segment of a specified population). Reporting the TREND criteria will improve the quality of the literature, but additional criteria related to external validity are also needed.

We offer suggestions based on recent literature reviews of behavior change studies.2–6 Few studies reported on the representativeness or impact of setting-level factors and intervention staff, which are critical to an understanding of moderating variables and external validity. To address this problem, we recommend the addition of the following criteria to TREND:

  • Report the percentage of eligible settings (e.g., schools, worksites, community organizations) that participated and compare characteristics of those participating with characteristics of those declining (or with characteristics of a specified target population of settings).

  • Report the percentage of intervention staff members in these settings who participate in delivering the intervention; compare characteristics of those participating with characteristics of those declining (or with characteristics of a specified target population of clinicians); and compare differences in intervention delivery and outcomes among those who participate.

  • Report costs of the intervention, such as capital outlay and staff hours, and, where feasible, report on more sophisticated economic outcomes.

  • Report long-term results and the extent to which settings sustain or modify the program after the formal study has been completed.

The TREND group stated that nonrandomized designs are needed to strengthen the evidence-based public health practice literature. The advantages of nonrandomized designs over randomized controlled trials include being less expensive to conduct and not requiring agreement to randomization for participation. Nonrandomized designs provide greater opportunity than randomized controlled trials to obtain cost estimates in limited-resource environments and to evaluate implementation conducted by typical staff members.

The TREND criteria can benefit the public health community as the CONSORT7 criteria have benefited medicine. In response to the TREND group’s call for feedback, we offer these suggestions to address issues critically important for the translation of research to practice.

References

  • 1.Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N, TREND group. Improving the reporting of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND Statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:361–366. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Estabrooks P. The future of health behavior change research: what is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Ann Behav Med. 2004;27:3–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Estabrooks P, Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM. Reporting of validity from school health promotion studies published in 12 leading journals, 1996–2000. J Sch Health. 2003;73:21–28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Glasgow RE, Bull SS, Gillette C, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA. Behavior change intervention research in healthcare settings: a review of recent reports with emphasis on external validity. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23:62–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bull SS, Gillette C, Glasgow RE, Estabrooks P. Work site health promotion research: to what extent can we generalize the results and what is needed to translate research to practice? Health Educ Behav. 2003;30:537–549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Klesges LM, Bull S, Glasgow RE. Behavior change intervention research in community settings: how generalizable are the results? Health Promot Int. 2004;19:235–245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191–1194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES