4.6 Article

Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance

期刊

JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH
卷 66, 期 12, 页码 1182-1186

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech-2011-200375

关键词

-

资金

  1. MRC Population Health Sciences Research Network
  2. MRC Methodology Research Panel
  3. ESRC [ES/G007543/1, ES/G007462/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. MRC [MC_UP_A540_1022, MC_U130059821, MC_U130085862, MC_U105260792, MC_U106179474] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/G007462/1, ES/G007543/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [MC_U130059821, U1475000001, MC_U106179474, MC_U147585824, MC_U130085862, MC_UP_A620_1014, MC_U105260792, MC_UP_A540_1022, UD99999937] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10082] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Natural experimental studies are often recommended as a way of understanding the health impact of policies and other large scale interventions. Although they have certain advantages over planned experiments, and may be the only option when it is impossible to manipulate exposure to the intervention, natural experimental studies are more susceptible to bias. This paper introduces new guidance from the Medical Research Council to help researchers and users, funders and publishers of research evidence make the best use of natural experimental approaches to evaluating population health interventions. The guidance emphasises that natural experiments can provide convincing evidence of impact even when effects are small or take time to appear. However, a good understanding is needed of the process determining exposure to the intervention, and careful choice and combination of methods, testing of assumptions and transparent reporting is vital. More could be learnt from natural experiments in future as experience of promising but lesser used methods accumulates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据