.100,116 In observational studies, intensive ethnographic qualitative documentation of process and outcomes

.100,116 In observational studies, intensive ethnographic qualitative documentation of process and outcomes is critical in order to minimize both Type 1 and Type 2 errors.44 The evaluation of safer injection facilities (SIFs) provides a good example of design issues confronting the evaluation of structural interventions. If the investigators had decided to attempt an RCT by randomizing individual drug users, contamination between controls and experimentals would be likely. Moreover, one city is likely to have resources and support for one or only a few SIFs. Even if the sample size of SIFs that could be randomized were sufficiently large, an RCT study design with only pre and post-test assessments would limit the knowledge gained. An RCT could tell us that there was a HS-173 web difference between conditions in levels of risk behavior but not necessarily the cause of those differences. Historic events such as number of drug overdoses in the areas of the city, the availability of drugs, arrests and violence, all differ by geographic area and hence may have a strong impact on both the use of injection facilities and the risk behaviors. Moreover, even in the absence of these historic events and threats to validity, an RCT would not provide information on how to replicate the establishment of a SIF. Many researchers presume that, due to their complexity, structural interventions have limited generalizability and are more similar to case studies than replicable experiments. Although it may not be possible to replicate a specific structural intervention exactly, it is feasible to replicate the process of intervention implementation and the methods of process evaluation. Before embarking on structural interventions, it may be useful to conduct an analysis of relevant systems, such as a community readiness assessment. Not all settings are equally appropriate for structural interventions and not all structural factors and dynamics are equally salient to a particular problem. Some communities have high levels of social disorganization and specific programs may quickly decay. A community with few resources and vehemently against harm reduction programs may not be the ideal environment to establish a SIF. A more appropriate goal may be to increase community organization and foster a better understanding of substance abuse before embarking on the establishment of a SIF. Key factors to consider in analyses of structural factors include the stability of these structures, ability of change agents to organize and modify structural factors, the sustainability of these changes, and potential power of these structural factors to lead to behavior change. Despite this complexity, there are many opportunities to build structural interventions to reduce HIV/AIDS. For example, it is possible to use extant structural conditions, social action groups, social movements, and dynamic conditions to build action to change the environment and context of risk, policies, and laws. Chloroquine (diphosphate)MedChemExpress Chloroquine (diphosphate) Scientists can take advantage of opportunities to view ongoing events and their impacts (e.g., mass media reports, sex education policy, increased involvement of national leadership, economic crisis) in order to better understand the structural factors affecting HIV/AIDS. Further, structural interventions can be built on resources in the environment and structural conditions that support social action for change. Yet another approach is to engage affected communities in research and action to facilitate t..100,116 In observational studies, intensive ethnographic qualitative documentation of process and outcomes is critical in order to minimize both Type 1 and Type 2 errors.44 The evaluation of safer injection facilities (SIFs) provides a good example of design issues confronting the evaluation of structural interventions. If the investigators had decided to attempt an RCT by randomizing individual drug users, contamination between controls and experimentals would be likely. Moreover, one city is likely to have resources and support for one or only a few SIFs. Even if the sample size of SIFs that could be randomized were sufficiently large, an RCT study design with only pre and post-test assessments would limit the knowledge gained. An RCT could tell us that there was a difference between conditions in levels of risk behavior but not necessarily the cause of those differences. Historic events such as number of drug overdoses in the areas of the city, the availability of drugs, arrests and violence, all differ by geographic area and hence may have a strong impact on both the use of injection facilities and the risk behaviors. Moreover, even in the absence of these historic events and threats to validity, an RCT would not provide information on how to replicate the establishment of a SIF. Many researchers presume that, due to their complexity, structural interventions have limited generalizability and are more similar to case studies than replicable experiments. Although it may not be possible to replicate a specific structural intervention exactly, it is feasible to replicate the process of intervention implementation and the methods of process evaluation. Before embarking on structural interventions, it may be useful to conduct an analysis of relevant systems, such as a community readiness assessment. Not all settings are equally appropriate for structural interventions and not all structural factors and dynamics are equally salient to a particular problem. Some communities have high levels of social disorganization and specific programs may quickly decay. A community with few resources and vehemently against harm reduction programs may not be the ideal environment to establish a SIF. A more appropriate goal may be to increase community organization and foster a better understanding of substance abuse before embarking on the establishment of a SIF. Key factors to consider in analyses of structural factors include the stability of these structures, ability of change agents to organize and modify structural factors, the sustainability of these changes, and potential power of these structural factors to lead to behavior change. Despite this complexity, there are many opportunities to build structural interventions to reduce HIV/AIDS. For example, it is possible to use extant structural conditions, social action groups, social movements, and dynamic conditions to build action to change the environment and context of risk, policies, and laws. Scientists can take advantage of opportunities to view ongoing events and their impacts (e.g., mass media reports, sex education policy, increased involvement of national leadership, economic crisis) in order to better understand the structural factors affecting HIV/AIDS. Further, structural interventions can be built on resources in the environment and structural conditions that support social action for change. Yet another approach is to engage affected communities in research and action to facilitate t.