Planning for Long-Term Follow-Up: Strategies Learned from Longitudinal Studies

Abstract

Preventive interventions are often designed and tested with the immediate program period in mind, and little thought that the intervention sample might be followed up for years, or even decades beyond the initial trial. However, depending on the type of intervention and the nature of the outcomes, long-term follow-up may well be appropriate. The advantages of long-term follow-up of preventive interventions are discussed, and include the capacity to examine program effects across multiple later life outcomes, the ability to examine the etiological processes involved in the development of the outcomes of interest and the ability to provide more concrete estimates of the relative benefits and costs of an intervention. In addition, researchers have identified potential methodological risks of long-term follow-up such as inflation of type 1 error through post-hoc selection of outcomes, selection bias and problems stemming from attrition over time. The present paper presents a set of seven recommendations for the design or evaluation of studies for potential long-term follow-up organized under four areas: Intervention Logic Model, Developmental Theory and Measurement Issues; Design for Retention; Dealing with Missing Data; and Unique Considerations for Intervention Studies. These recommendations include conceptual considerations in the design of a study, pragmatic concerns in the design and implementation of the data collection for long-term follow-up, as well as criteria to be considered for the evaluation of an existing intervention for potential for long-term follow-up. Concrete examples from existing intervention studies that have been followed up over the long-term are provided.

Association between PM2.5 and risk of hospitalization for myocardial infarction: a systematic review and a meta-analysis

“…The follow-up index is easy to achieve and could be applied as a reporting criterion for indicators [56]. It is thought that the priority put on the long-term follow-up could enhance the capability to prepare more precise estimates [57]. We also found derivation errors in the second meta-analysis which was performed in 2015.…”

Trauma Education and Stigma Reduction in Global Settings: An Evaluation of the Impact of a One-Day Trauma Psychoeducation Workshop with Community Stakeholders in the Caribbean Nation of Saint Lucia

“…Relatedly, integration of technology could also potentially be used to address a missing feature in the current study: The lack of evaluation of longer-term impacts of the training on retention of knowledge gains, actual practice effects when working with survivors of trauma, and self-care behaviors. Monitoring of long-term effects of such trainings and clinical research in general are desirable in order to yield more extensive outcome data if done in the most methodologically sound way [31].…”

Neighborhood Poverty Increases Risk for Cigarette Smoking From Age 30 to 39

“…Examination of the proportional odds assumption for ordered logistic regression showed similar magnitude and direction of coefficients across thresholds of smoking. Some SSDP participants received a social development intervention during elementary school [19]. Sensitivity tests controlling for intervention condition did not show substantive changes to the results of Model 2.…”

“…Since 1985, 15 waves of data have been collected with annual or bi-annual assessments for youth until 1993 and assessments approximately every 3-5 years for adults from 1996 to 2014. The history of the SSDP sample has been described elsewhere [19]. The analytic sample employed three waves of data gathered prospectively in 2005, 2008, and 2014 (N = 752) when both home address and cigarette smoking information were available for adult participants.…”