Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Malotte, C.K.
Right arrow Articles by Morisky, D. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Malotte, C.K.
Right arrow Articles by Morisky, D. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, 153-159, 1994
© 1994 Oxford University Press

other

Using an unobstrusively monitored comparison study group in a longitudinal design

C.Kevin Malotte and Donald E. Morisky

Department of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles 10833 LeConte Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA

True or classical experimental designs have often been used as the sine qua non of an effective and internally valid approach to examine causal relationships. The Solomon four-group design has been used to assess pre-test effects, but it is often difficult and expensive to implement. This study describes how a non-contact comparison group, followed through medical records, can be used in combination with a randomized experimental-control design to assess pre-test and monitoring effects. A total of 75 patients receiving chemoprophylactic tuberculosis therapy were randomly assigned to a special education intervention (SI) group or to a usual care (UC) group and followed for 12 months. Eighty-five patients who constituted a non-contact comparison (NCC) group were also followed through medical chart reviews for the same period. Life table analyses of the proportion of subjects completing prescribed therapy showed significant differences by group at 6 months of treatment, with 64% of SI subjects, 30% of UC subjects and 21% of NCC subjects still in treatment (P < 0.01). Median time in care was 52 (SI), 13 (UC) and 5 weeks (NCC). There was no difference between the UC and NCC groups in percentage of subjects completing 1 year of therapy. Implications regarding potential underestimation of true differences between experimental and control groups are discussed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.