期刊
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 19-35出版社
ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2018.1488449
关键词
Natural experiment; quasi-experimental; policy; programme; evaluation
资金
- Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
In particular research domains, the randomized control trial (RCT) is considered to be the only means for obtaining reliable estimates of the true impact of an intervention. However, an RCT design would often not be considered ethical, politically feasible, or appropriate for evaluating the impact of many policy, programme, or structural changes common in public health research. As such, researchers must use alternative yet robust research methods for determining the impact of such interventions. The evaluation of natural experiments (i.e. an intervention not controlled or manipulated by researchers), using various experimental and non-experimental design options can provide an alternative to the RCT. The following review highlights (a) the importance of evaluating natural experiments; (b) design considerations associated with evaluating natural experiments; (c) methods for reducing bias in natural experimental studies; and (d) the potential benefits of targeted systems to enable natural experiments in emerging priority domains moving forward.
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。
推荐
暂无数据