Article Text

PDF
Population attributable fraction: names, types and issues with incorrect interpretation of relative risks
  1. Belen Zapata-Diomedi1,
  2. Jan J Barendregt2,3,
  3. J Lennert Veerman3
  1. 1School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2Epigear International, Sunrise Beach, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Belen Zapata-Diomedi, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Level 2, Public Health Building, Herston, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia; b.zapatadiomedi{at}uq.edu.au

Statistics from Altmetric.com

The development of the original population attributable fraction (PAF) dates back to 19531 and it has been widely used, misused and miscalled since then. We discuss two main issues here: use of appropriate terminology and calculations of the PAF, and of the potential impact fraction (PIF).

The PAF is the proportion of cases for an outcome of interest that can be attributed to a given risk factor among the entire population.2 Despite this clear description, it is not rare to find studies that call it population attributable risk (PAR). PAR is the difference in the rate or risk of disease for the population compared to the unexposed.Embedded Image 1Embedded Image 2

PAR is only one of the other names being used; as noted previously,3 ,4 there is great vagueness in the use of terminology. Other common names used are ‘population attributable risk percent’, ‘excess fraction’, ‘etiological fraction’ and ‘attributable fraction’. …

View Full Text

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.