Making better use of natural experimental evaluation in population health

Peter Craig, Mhairi Campbell*, Adrian Bauman, Manuela Deidda, Ruth Dundas, Niamh Fitzgerald, Judith Green, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Jim Lewsey, David Ogilvie, Frank de Vocht, Martin White

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)
45 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Key messages
• Natural experimental evaluations can provide useful information to guide decision making about interventions
• Most discussion has focussed on what quantitative methods are suitable for natural experimental evaluations
Key definitions and concepts remain contested and there is a lack of consensus about the circumstances in which natural experimental evaluations can provide trustworthy and useful evidence for decision-making
• Guidance should help identify the circumstances that make for good natural experimental evaluation, and a range of applicable methods
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere070872
Pages (from-to)e070872
JournalThe BMJ
Volume379
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Oct 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
We thank the Medical Research Council, the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office, NHS Research Scotland, UK Prevention Research Partnership, UK Research and Innovation, and Wellcome Trust for financial support.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Making better use of natural experimental evaluation in population health'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this