Do small effects matter more in vulnerable populations? an investigation using Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) cohorts.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in epidemiology is knowing when an exposure effect is large enough to be clinically important, in particular how to interpret a difference in mean outcome in unexposed/exposed groups. Where it can be calculated, the proportion/percentage beyond a suitable cut-point is useful in defining individuals at high risk to give a more meaningful outcome. In this simulation study we compute differences in outcome means and proportions that arise from hypothetical small effects in vulnerable sub-populations. METHODS: Data from over 28,000 mother/child pairs belonging to the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes Program were used to examine the impact of hypothetical environmental exposures on mean birthweight, and low birthweight (LBW) (birthweight < 2500g). We computed mean birthweight in unexposed/exposed groups by sociodemographic categories (maternal education, health insurance, race, ethnicity) using a range of hypothetical exposure effect sizes. We compared the difference in mean birthweight and the percentage LBW, calculated using a distributional approach. RESULTS: When the hypothetical mean exposure effect was fixed (at 50, 125, 167 or 250g), the absolute difference in % LBW (risk difference) was not constant but varied by socioeconomic categories. The risk differences were greater in sub-populations with the highest baseline percentages LBW: ranging from 3.1-5.3 percentage points for exposure effect of 125g. Similar patterns were seen for other mean exposure sizes simulated. CONCLUSIONS: Vulnerable sub-populations with greater baseline percentages at high risk fare worse when exposed to a small insult compared to the general population. This illustrates another facet of health disparity in vulnerable individuals.

Duke Scholars

Author Laura Kristin Newby Medicine, Cardiology