Search

Background: Epidemiologists have debated the appropriate time-scale for cohort survival studies; chronological age or time-on-study being two such time-scales. Importantly, assessment of risk factors may depend on the choice of time-scale. Recently, chronological or attained age has gained support but a case can be made for a ‘reference relative time-scale’ as an alternative which circumvents difficulties that arise with this and other scales. The reference relative time of an individual participant is the integral of a reference population hazard function between time of entry and time of exit of the individual. The objective here is to describe the reference relative time-scale, illustrate its use, make comparison with attained age by simulation and explain its relationship to modern and traditional epidemiologic methods. Results: A comparison was made between two models; a stratified Cox model with age as the time-scale versus an un-stratified Cox model using the reference relative time-scale. The illustrative comparison used a UK cohort of cotton workers, with differing ages at entry to the study, with accrual over a time period and with long follow-up. Additionally, exponential and Weibull models were fitted since the reference relative time-scale analysis need not be restricted to the Cox model. A simulation study showed that analysis using the reference relative time-scale and analysis using chronological age had very similar power to detect a significant risk factor and both were equally unbiased. Further, the analysis using the reference relative time-scale supported fully-parametric survival modelling and allowed percentile predictions and mortality curves to be constructed. Conclusions: The reference relative time-scale was a viable alternative to chronological age, led to simplification of the modelling process and possessed the defined features of a good time-scale as defined in reliability theory. The reference relative time-scale has several interpretations and provides a unifying concept that links contemporary approaches in survival and reliability analysis to the traditional epidemiologic methods of Poisson regression and standardised mortality ratios. The community of practitioners has not previously made this connection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is conflicting evidence as to whether smoking is more harmful to women than to men. The UK Cotton Workers' Cohort was recruited in the 1960s and contained a high proportion of men and women smokers who are well matched in terms of age, job and length of time in job. The cohort has been followed up for 42 years. Methods Mortality in the cohort was analysed using an individual relative survival method and Cox regression. Whether smoking, ascertained at baseline in the 1960s, was more hazardous to women than to men was examined by estimating the relative risk ratio women to men, smokers to never smoked, for light (1-14), medium (15-24), heavy (25+ cigarettes per day) and former smoking. Results For all-cause mortality relative risk ratios were 1.35 for light smoking at baseline (95%CI 1.07-1.70), 1.15 for medium smoking (95%CI 0.89-1.49) and 1.00 for heavy smoking (95%CI 0.63-1.61). Relative risk ratios for light smoking at baseline for circulatory system disease was 1.42 (95%CI 1.01 to 1.98) and for respiratory disease was 1.89 (95%CI 0.99 to 3.63). Heights of participants provided no explanation for the gender difference. Conclusions Light smoking at baseline was shown to be significantly more hazardous to women than to men but the effect decreased as consumption increased indicating a dose response relationship. Heavy smoking was equally hazardous to both genders. This result may help explain the conflicting evidence seen elsewhere. However gender differences in smoking cessation may provide an alternative explanation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Incentive or reward schemes are becoming increasingly popular to motivate healthy lifestyle behaviours. In this paper, insights from a qualitative and descriptive study to investigate the uptake, impact and meanings of a breastfeeding incentive intervention integrated into an existing peer support programme (Star Buddies) are reported. The Star Buddies service employs breastfeeding peer supporters to support women across the ante-natal, intra-partum and post-partum period. Methods: In a disadvantaged area of North West England, women initiating breastfeeding were recruited by peer supporters on the postnatal ward or soon after hospital discharge to participate in an 8 week incentive (gifts and vouchers) and breastfeeding peer supporter intervention. In-depth interviews were conducted with 26 women participants who engaged with the incentive intervention, and a focus group was held with the 4 community peer supporters who delivered the intervention. Descriptive analysis of routinely collected data for peer supporter contacts and breastfeeding outcomes before and after the incentive intervention triangulated and retrospectively provided the context for the qualitative thematic analysis. Results: A global theme emerged of 'incentives as connectors', with two sub-themes of 'facilitating connections' and 'facilitating relationships and wellbeing'. The incentives were linked to discussion themes and gift giving facilitated peer supporter access for proactive weekly home visits to support women. Regular face to face contacts enabled meaningful relationships and new connections within and between the women, families, peer supporters and care providers to be formed and sustained. Participants in the incentive scheme received more home visits and total contact time with peer supporters compared to women before the incentive intervention. Full participation levels and breastfeeding rates at 6-8 weeks were similar for women before and after the incentive intervention. Conclusion: The findings suggest that whilst the provision of incentives might not influence women's intentions or motivations to breastfeed, the connections forged provided psycho-social benefits for both programme users and peer supporters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]