Original articleOptimal survey design for community intervention evaluations: Cohort or cross-sectional?
References (13)
- et al.
Community-wide prevention strategies: Evaluation design of the Minnesota Heart Health Program
J Chronic Dis
(1986) - et al.
The evaluation of the Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation's Community Health Promotion Grant Program: Design
J Clin Epidemiol
(1991) A framework for evaluating community-based heart disease prevention programs. Soc
Sci Med
(1986)- et al.
The Stanford five-city project; design and methods
Am J Epidemiol
(1985) - et al.
- et al.
Food-based validation of dietary questionnaires: The effects of week-to-week variation in food consumption
Int J Epidemiol
(1989)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.
Cited by (33)
A multi-level intervention in worksites to increase fruit and vegetable access and intake: Rationale, design and methods of the ‘Good to Go’ cluster randomized trial
2018, Contemporary Clinical TrialsCitation Excerpt :We also will conduct a cohort outcome evaluation rather than a cross-sectional evaluation to capture changes at the individual level among employees “exposed” for the entire intervention period. Also, cohort data has lower sampling variability than estimates of change from repeated cross-sectional surveys [63,64]. To recruit the evaluation cohort, all employees will be contacted to provide the opportunity to ‘opt out’.
Interactive computer program for optimal designs of longitudinal cohort studies
2009, Computer Methods and Programs in BiomedicineEffects of the Quebec Heart Health Demonstration Project on adult dietary behaviours
2004, Preventive Medicine
Copyright © 1995 Published by Elsevier Inc.