The Anglo-Saxon disease’
A pilot study of the barriers to and facilitators of the use of randomised controlled trials of social programmes in an international context: Table 1
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11174573 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Helen Roberts (0000-0002-6319-061X, General Adolescent and Paediatrics Unit, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK, corresponding author), Mark Petticrew (0000-0002-6378-5517, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine), Kristin Liabo (0000-0002-7052-1261, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, London, UK), Macintyre (0000-0003-3644-7237, MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit), Sally Macintyre (MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow, UK) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 66 |
| Issue | 11 |
| Pages | 1025-1029 |
| Publication date | 2012-11-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0143-005X • E-ISSN: 1470-2738 |
| Publisher | BMJ (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1136/jech-2011-200313 |
| PMID | 22412153 |
| PMCID | PMC3465834 |
| OpenAlex | W2099303907 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 15 |
BACKGROUND: There appears to be considerable variation between different national jurisdictions and between different sectors of public policy in the use of evidence and particularly the use of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate non-healthcare sector programmes. METHODS: As part of a wider study attempting to identify RCTs of public policy sector programmes and the reasons for variation between countries and sectors in their use, we carried out a pilot study which interviewed 10 policy makers and researchers in six countries to elicit views on barriers to and facilitators of the use of RCTs for social programmes. RESULTS: While in common with earlier studies, those interviewed expressed a need for unambiguous findings, timely results and significant effect sizes, users could, in fact, be ambivalent about robust methods and robust answers about what works, does not work or makes no difference, particularly where investment or a policy announcement was planned. Different national and policy sector cultures varied in their use of and support for RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: In order to maximise the use of robust evaluations of public programmes across the world it would be useful to examine, systematically, cross-national and cross-sectoral variations in the use of different methods including RCTs and barriers to and facilitators of their use. Sound research methods, whatever their scientific value, are no guarantee that findings will be useful or used. 'Stories' have been shown to influence policy; those advocating the use of RCTs may need to provide convincing narratives to avoid repetition about their value
Context (archaeology) · Economic growth · Economics · Health care · Medical education · Political science · Public economics · Public health · Public policy · Public relations · Public sector · Randomized controlled trial · Advanced Causal Inference Techniques · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Health Policy Implementation Science · Medicine · Nursing · Surgery
Developing and evaluating complex interventions
Killer facts, politics and other influences
Observing the implementation of a social experiment
Meeting the Challenge of Doing an RCT Evaluation of Youth Mentoring in Ireland
Good intentions and received wisdom are not good enough
Evidence for public health policy on inequalities
Evidence for public health policy on inequalities
Running along parallel lines
Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies
Telling Policy Stories
| Citations per year | 0.23 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2013 - 2016 (4) |
| Highly cited | No |