Article Text

PDF
Categorical versus continuous risk factors and the calculation of potential impact fractions
  1. Jan J Barendregt,
  2. J Lennert Veerman
  1. School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jan J Barendregt, School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston 4006, Australia; j.barendregt{at}sph.uq.edu.au

Abstract

Background The potential impact fraction is a measure of effect that calculates the proportional change in disease risk after a change in the exposure of a related risk factor. Potential impact fractions are increasingly used to calculate attributable fractions when the lowest exposure is non-zero.

Methods Risk-factor exposure can be expressed as a categorical or a continuous variable. For a categorical risk factor, a change in risk-factor exposure can be expressed as a change in the proportion of the population in each category (‘proportions shift’). For a continuous risk factor, the change is expressed as a change in its parameters (‘distribution shift’). A third method (‘RR shift’) takes elements of both the categorical and the continuous approach. We compare the three calculation methods using hypothetical data on BMI and an intervention that affects the obese category.

Results The ‘proportion shift’ calculation produces non-linear artefacts and is best avoided. The ‘RR shift’ and ‘distribution shift’ calculation require the estimation of an RR function to describe excess risk, but perform much better.

Conclusion The ‘proportion shift’ calculation is best avoided. The ‘RR shift’ and ‘distribution shift’ calculation produce virtually the same results. For evaluating high-risk strategies, the ‘RR shift’ calculation is the simplest and therefore preferred. The ‘distribution shift’ is best suited for evaluating population strategies.

  • Epidemiologic methods
  • evaluation studies
  • potential impact fraction
  • computing eqs

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding National Health & Medical Research Council.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.