Does selective migration bias the health impact assessment of urban regeneration programmes in cross-sectional studies? Findings from a Dutch case study

Health Place. 2019 Jan:55:155-164. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.11.007. Epub 2018 Dec 25.

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: Evaluation, Longitudinal design; Population health intervention; Repeated cross-sectional design; Selective migration; Urban regeneration.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Bias*
  • Child
  • Child, Preschool
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Ethnicity
  • Female
  • Health Impact Assessment*
  • Humans
  • Infant
  • Infant, Newborn
  • Longitudinal Studies
  • Male
  • Medication Adherence*
  • Middle Aged
  • Netherlands
  • Residence Characteristics
  • Transients and Migrants / statistics & numerical data*
  • Urban Renewal
  • Young Adult