4.6 Article

Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 5: a checklist for classifying studies evaluating the effects on health interventions-a taxonomy without labels

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 30-42

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.016

关键词

Health care; Health system; Evaluation; Study design; Quasi-experimental; Nonrandomized

资金

  1. U.K. National Institute for Health Research Bristol Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit
  2. 3ie

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of the study was to extend a previously published checklist of study design features to include study designs often used by health systems researchers and economists. Our intention is to help review authors in any field to set eligibility criteria for studies to include in a systematic review that relate directly to the intrinsic strength of the studies in inferring causality. We also seek to clarify key equivalences and differences in terminology used by different research communities. Study Design and Setting: Expert consensus meeting. Results: The checklist comprises seven questions, each with a list of response items, addressing: clustering of an intervention as an aspect of allocation or due to the intrinsic nature of the delivery of the intervention; for whom, and when, outcome data are available; how the intervention effect was estimated; the principle underlying control for confounding; how groups were formed; the features of a study carried out after it was designed; and the variables measured before intervention. Conclusion: The checklist clarifies the basis of credible quasi-experimental studies, reconciling different terminology used in different fields of investigation and facilitating communications across research communities. By applying the checklist, review authors' attention is also directed to the assumptions underpinning the methods for inferring causality. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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