Using randomized controlled trials to evaluate socially complex services: problems, challenges and recommendations

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Nancy Wolff
{"title":"Using randomized controlled trials to evaluate socially complex services: problems, challenges and recommendations","authors":"Nancy Wolff","doi":"10.1002/1099-176X(200006)3:2<97::AID-MHP77>3.0.CO;2-S","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> <b>Background:</b></h3>\n \n <p> Following the lead of evidence-based medicine, practice based on effectiveness research has become the new gold standard of contemporary public policy. Studies of this sort are increasingly demanded to evaluate services provided by mental health, social services and criminal justice systems.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> <b>Aims:</b></h3>\n \n <p> The paper questions whether the simple randomized controlled trial (RCT) paradigm as applied in clinical trials can be used ‘off the rack’ to evaluate <i>socially complex service (SCS) interventions</i>. These are services that are characterized by complex, diverse and non-standardized staffing arrangements; ambiguous protocols; hard-to-define study samples and unevenly motivated subjects and dependence on broader social environments. The difficulty of ensuring precise protocols, equivalent groups (tied to a meaningful target population) and neutral and equivalent trial environments under real world conditions are explored, as are the implications of not achieving standardization and equivalence.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> <b>Methods:</b></h3>\n \n <p> Limitations of effectiveness research as a research tool and information source are examined by comparing the assumptions underpinning the simple RCT to the characteristics of SCS interventions, as illustrated by programs targeted to mentally disordered offenders in Britain.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> <b>Results:</b></h3>\n \n <p> SCSs violate the assumptions underpinning the simple RCT model in ways that draw into sharp question the validity, reliability and generalizability of inferences of SCS trials.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> <b>Discussion:</b></h3>\n \n <p> The RCT is not a panacea. Effectiveness research of SCS interventions that is based on the RCT model is unlikely to yield valid, reliable and generalizable inferences without becoming more complex in design and more sensitive to issues of selection bias, unmeasured variables and endogeneity. Ten recommendations are offered for stylizing the RCT design to the characteristics of socially complex services.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> <b>Implications:</b></h3>\n \n <p> It remains an empirical issue whether RCT-based services effectiveness research can inform mental health policy. Without major design innovations, it is more likely that the information generated by this research will have limited practical use, especially if the RCT model is unable to control for the effect of social complexity and the interaction between social complexity and dynamic systemic change. Scientific evaluations of services make clinical and economic sense so long as they are designed to meet the challenges of the services of which they promise greater knowledge. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":46381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","volume":"3 2","pages":"97-109"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/1099-176X(200006)3:2<97::AID-MHP77>3.0.CO;2-S","citationCount":"103","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1099-176X%28200006%293%3A2%3C97%3A%3AAID-MHP77%3E3.0.CO%3B2-S","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 103

Abstract

Background:

Following the lead of evidence-based medicine, practice based on effectiveness research has become the new gold standard of contemporary public policy. Studies of this sort are increasingly demanded to evaluate services provided by mental health, social services and criminal justice systems.

Aims:

The paper questions whether the simple randomized controlled trial (RCT) paradigm as applied in clinical trials can be used ‘off the rack’ to evaluate socially complex service (SCS) interventions. These are services that are characterized by complex, diverse and non-standardized staffing arrangements; ambiguous protocols; hard-to-define study samples and unevenly motivated subjects and dependence on broader social environments. The difficulty of ensuring precise protocols, equivalent groups (tied to a meaningful target population) and neutral and equivalent trial environments under real world conditions are explored, as are the implications of not achieving standardization and equivalence.

Methods:

Limitations of effectiveness research as a research tool and information source are examined by comparing the assumptions underpinning the simple RCT to the characteristics of SCS interventions, as illustrated by programs targeted to mentally disordered offenders in Britain.

Results:

SCSs violate the assumptions underpinning the simple RCT model in ways that draw into sharp question the validity, reliability and generalizability of inferences of SCS trials.

Discussion:

The RCT is not a panacea. Effectiveness research of SCS interventions that is based on the RCT model is unlikely to yield valid, reliable and generalizable inferences without becoming more complex in design and more sensitive to issues of selection bias, unmeasured variables and endogeneity. Ten recommendations are offered for stylizing the RCT design to the characteristics of socially complex services.

Implications:

It remains an empirical issue whether RCT-based services effectiveness research can inform mental health policy. Without major design innovations, it is more likely that the information generated by this research will have limited practical use, especially if the RCT model is unable to control for the effect of social complexity and the interaction between social complexity and dynamic systemic change. Scientific evaluations of services make clinical and economic sense so long as they are designed to meet the challenges of the services of which they promise greater knowledge. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

使用随机对照试验评估社会复杂服务:问题、挑战和建议
背景:在循证医学的引领下,基于有效性研究的实践已成为当代公共政策的新金标准。越来越多的人要求进行此类研究,以评估心理健康、社会服务和刑事司法系统提供的服务。目的:本文质疑临床试验中应用的简单随机对照试验(RCT)范式是否可以“现成”用于评估社会复杂服务(SCS)干预措施。这些服务的特点是人员配置安排复杂、多样和不标准;模糊协议;难以定义的研究样本、动机不均衡的受试者以及对更广泛社会环境的依赖。探讨了在现实世界条件下确保精确的方案、等效群体(与有意义的目标人群挂钩)以及中立和等效的试验环境的困难,以及未实现标准化和等效的影响。方法:通过将支持简单随机对照试验的假设与SCS干预的特征进行比较,检验有效性研究作为研究工具和信息来源的局限性,如英国针对精神障碍罪犯的项目所示。结果:SCS违反了简单随机对照试验模型的假设,使SCS试验推断的有效性、可靠性和可推广性受到尖锐质疑。讨论:随机对照试验不是万灵药。基于随机对照试验模型的SCS干预措施的有效性研究不太可能产生有效、可靠和可推广的推论,而不会在设计上变得更加复杂,对选择偏差、未测量变量和内生性问题更加敏感。针对社会复杂服务的特点,提出了十条关于RCT设计风格化的建议。影响:基于随机对照试验的服务有效性研究是否能为心理健康政策提供信息仍然是一个实证问题。如果没有重大的设计创新,这项研究产生的信息更有可能具有有限的实际用途,特别是如果RCT模型无法控制社会复杂性的影响以及社会复杂性与动态系统变化之间的互动。对服务的科学评估具有临床和经济意义,只要它们旨在应对服务的挑战,并承诺提供更多的知识。版权所有©2000 John Wiley&;有限公司。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics publishes high quality empirical, analytical and methodologic papers focusing on the application of health and economic research and policy analysis in mental health. It offers an international forum to enable the different participants in mental health policy and economics - psychiatrists involved in research and care and other mental health workers, health services researchers, health economists, policy makers, public and private health providers, advocacy groups, and the pharmaceutical industry - to share common information in a common language.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信