Does selective migration bias the health impact assessment of urban regeneration programmes in cross-sectional studies?

Findings from a Dutch case study

Annemarie Ruijsbroek*, Albert Wong, Carolien van den Brink, Mariel Droomers, J. A.M. van Oers, Karien Stronks, Anton E. Kunst

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

We 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)155-164
Number of pages10
JournalHealth & Place
Volume55
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Keywords

  • Urban regeneration
  • Population health intervention
  • Selective migration
  • Evaluation, Longitudinal design
  • Repeated cross-sectional design
  • MENTAL-HEALTH
  • INTERVENTIONS
  • NEIGHBORHOODS
  • POLICY

Cite this

Ruijsbroek, Annemarie ; Wong, Albert ; van den Brink, Carolien ; Droomers, Mariel ; van Oers, J. A.M. ; Stronks, Karien ; Kunst, Anton E. / Does selective migration bias the health impact assessment of urban regeneration programmes in cross-sectional studies? Findings from a Dutch case study. In: Health & Place. 2019 ; Vol. 55. pp. 155-164.
@article{45d2e88581a84159ad75b01f8582aede,
title = "Does selective migration bias the health impact assessment of urban regeneration programmes in cross-sectional studies?: Findings from a Dutch case study",
abstract = "We 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.",
keywords = "Urban regeneration, Population health intervention, Selective migration, Evaluation, Longitudinal design, Repeated cross-sectional design, MENTAL-HEALTH, INTERVENTIONS, NEIGHBORHOODS, POLICY",
author = "Annemarie Ruijsbroek and Albert Wong and {van den Brink}, Carolien and Mariel Droomers and {van Oers}, {J. A.M.} and Karien Stronks and Kunst, {Anton E.}",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.11.007",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "155--164",
journal = "Health & Place",
issn = "1353-8292",
publisher = "ELSEVIER SCI LTD",

}

Does selective migration bias the health impact assessment of urban regeneration programmes in cross-sectional studies? Findings from a Dutch case study. / Ruijsbroek, Annemarie; Wong, Albert; van den Brink, Carolien; Droomers, Mariel; van Oers, J. A.M.; Stronks, Karien; Kunst, Anton E.

In: Health & Place, Vol. 55, 2019, p. 155-164.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does selective migration bias the health impact assessment of urban regeneration programmes in cross-sectional studies?

T2 - Findings from a Dutch case study

AU - Ruijsbroek, Annemarie

AU - Wong, Albert

AU - van den Brink, Carolien

AU - Droomers, Mariel

AU - van Oers, J. A.M.

AU - Stronks, Karien

AU - Kunst, Anton E.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - We 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.

AB - We 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.

KW - Urban regeneration

KW - Population health intervention

KW - Selective migration

KW - Evaluation, Longitudinal design

KW - Repeated cross-sectional design

KW - MENTAL-HEALTH

KW - INTERVENTIONS

KW - NEIGHBORHOODS

KW - POLICY

U2 - 10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.11.007

DO - 10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.11.007

M3 - Article

VL - 55

SP - 155

EP - 164

JO - Health & Place

JF - Health & Place

SN - 1353-8292

ER -