Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRuijsbroek, Annemarie
dc.contributor.authorWong, Albert
dc.contributor.authorvan den Brink, Carolien
dc.contributor.authorDroomers, Mariël
dc.contributor.authorvan Oers, Hans A M
dc.contributor.authorStronks, Karien
dc.contributor.authorKunst, Anton E
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-14T12:48:24Z
dc.date.available2019-03-14T12:48:24Z
dc.date.issued2019-01-01
dc.identifier.issn1873-2054
dc.identifier.pmid30591231
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.11.007
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10029/622877
dc.description.abstractWe examined if the assessment of the health impact of a national Dutch regeneration programme depends on using either a repeated cross-sectional or longitudinal study design. This is important as only the latter design can incorporate migration patterns. For both designs, we compared trends in medication use between target and control districts. We found differences in medication use trends to be modest under the longitudinal design, and not demonstrable under the repeated cross-sectional design. The observed differences were hardly influenced by migration patterns. We conclude that in the Netherlands migration patterns had little effect on the health impact assessment of this national urban regeneration programme, so either the cross-sectional or longitudinal evaluation study design will do.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectEvaluation, Longitudinal designen_US
dc.subjectPopulation health interventionen_US
dc.subjectRepeated cross-sectional designen_US
dc.subjectSelective migrationen_US
dc.subjectUrban regenerationen_US
dc.titleDoes selective migration bias the health impact assessment of urban regeneration programmes in cross-sectional studies? Findings from a Dutch case study.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.journalHealth Place 2019; 55:155-64en_US
dc.source.journaltitleHealth & place


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record