利用自然实验评价人口健康干预措施:证据提供者和使用者的框架。

Peter Craig, Mhairi Campbell, Manuela Deidda, Ruth Dundas, Judith Green, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Jim Lewsey, David Ogilvie, Frank de Vocht, Martin White
{"title":"利用自然实验评价人口健康干预措施:证据提供者和使用者的框架。","authors":"Peter Craig, Mhairi Campbell, Manuela Deidda, Ruth Dundas, Judith Green, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Jim Lewsey, David Ogilvie, Frank de Vocht, Martin White","doi":"10.3310/JTYW6582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been a substantial increase in the conduct of natural experimental evaluations in the last 10 years. This has been driven by advances in methodology, greater availability of large routinely collected datasets, and a rise in demand for evidence about the impacts of upstream population health interventions. It is important that researchers, practitioners, commissioners, and users of intervention research are aware of the recent developments. This new framework updates and extends existing Medical Research Council guidance for using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The framework was developed with input from three international workshops and an online consultation with researchers, journal editors, funding representatives, and individuals with experience of using and commissioning natural experimental evaluations. The project team comprised researchers with expertise in natural experimental evaluations. The project had a funder-assigned oversight group and an advisory group of independent experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The framework defines key concepts and provides an overview of recent advances in designing and planning evaluations of natural experiments, including the relevance of a systems perspective, mixed methods and stakeholder involvement throughout the process. It provides an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, applicability and limitations of the range of methods now available, identifies issues of infrastructure and data governance, and provides good practice considerations.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The framework does not provide detailed information for the substantial volume of themes and material covered, rather an overview of key issues to help the conduct and use of natural experimental evaluations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This updated and extended framework provides an integrated guide to the use of natural experimental methods to evaluate population health interventions. The framework provides a range of tools to support its use and detailed, evidence-informed recommendations for researchers, funders, publishers, and users of evidence.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This methodological project was not registered.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), with project reference MC_PC_21009. The work is published in full in <i>Public Health Research</i>; Vol. 13, No. 3.</p>","PeriodicalId":74615,"journal":{"name":"Public health research (Southampton, England)","volume":"13 3","pages":"1-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: a framework for producers and users of evidence.\",\"authors\":\"Peter Craig, Mhairi Campbell, Manuela Deidda, Ruth Dundas, Judith Green, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Jim Lewsey, David Ogilvie, Frank de Vocht, Martin White\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/JTYW6582\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been a substantial increase in the conduct of natural experimental evaluations in the last 10 years. This has been driven by advances in methodology, greater availability of large routinely collected datasets, and a rise in demand for evidence about the impacts of upstream population health interventions. It is important that researchers, practitioners, commissioners, and users of intervention research are aware of the recent developments. This new framework updates and extends existing Medical Research Council guidance for using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The framework was developed with input from three international workshops and an online consultation with researchers, journal editors, funding representatives, and individuals with experience of using and commissioning natural experimental evaluations. The project team comprised researchers with expertise in natural experimental evaluations. The project had a funder-assigned oversight group and an advisory group of independent experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The framework defines key concepts and provides an overview of recent advances in designing and planning evaluations of natural experiments, including the relevance of a systems perspective, mixed methods and stakeholder involvement throughout the process. It provides an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, applicability and limitations of the range of methods now available, identifies issues of infrastructure and data governance, and provides good practice considerations.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The framework does not provide detailed information for the substantial volume of themes and material covered, rather an overview of key issues to help the conduct and use of natural experimental evaluations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This updated and extended framework provides an integrated guide to the use of natural experimental methods to evaluate population health interventions. The framework provides a range of tools to support its use and detailed, evidence-informed recommendations for researchers, funders, publishers, and users of evidence.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This methodological project was not registered.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), with project reference MC_PC_21009. The work is published in full in <i>Public Health Research</i>; Vol. 13, No. 3.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public health research (Southampton, England)\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"1-59\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public health research (Southampton, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/JTYW6582\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public health research (Southampton, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/JTYW6582","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在过去十年中,自然实验评估的开展有了实质性的增加。这是由于方法的进步、常规收集的大型数据集的可用性增加以及对上游人口健康干预措施影响证据的需求增加所推动的。重要的是,研究人员、从业人员、委员和干预研究的使用者都要意识到最近的发展。这一新框架更新并扩展了医学研究理事会关于利用自然实验评估人口健康干预措施的现有指导。方法:该框架是根据三个国际研讨会的投入和与研究人员、期刊编辑、资助代表以及具有使用和委托自然实验评估经验的个人的在线咨询而制定的。项目组由具有自然实验评估专业知识的研究人员组成。该项目有一个资金分配的监督小组和一个由独立专家组成的咨询小组。结果:该框架定义了关键概念,并概述了自然实验设计和规划评估的最新进展,包括系统视角的相关性、混合方法和整个过程中的利益相关者参与。它概述了目前可用的各种方法的优点、缺点、适用性和局限性,确定了基础设施和数据治理的问题,并提供了良好的实践注意事项。局限性:该框架没有提供所涵盖的大量主题和材料的详细信息,而是概述了有助于进行和使用自然实验评价的关键问题。结论:这一更新和扩展的框架为使用自然实验方法评估人口健康干预措施提供了综合指南。该框架为支持其使用提供了一系列工具,并为研究人员、资助者、出版商和证据使用者提供了详细的循证建议。研究注册:本方法学项目未注册。资助:本项目由医学研究委员会(MRC)和国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)共同资助,项目编号MC_PC_21009。这项研究全文发表在《公共卫生研究》杂志上;第13卷第3期
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: a framework for producers and users of evidence.

Background: There has been a substantial increase in the conduct of natural experimental evaluations in the last 10 years. This has been driven by advances in methodology, greater availability of large routinely collected datasets, and a rise in demand for evidence about the impacts of upstream population health interventions. It is important that researchers, practitioners, commissioners, and users of intervention research are aware of the recent developments. This new framework updates and extends existing Medical Research Council guidance for using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions.

Methods: The framework was developed with input from three international workshops and an online consultation with researchers, journal editors, funding representatives, and individuals with experience of using and commissioning natural experimental evaluations. The project team comprised researchers with expertise in natural experimental evaluations. The project had a funder-assigned oversight group and an advisory group of independent experts.

Results: The framework defines key concepts and provides an overview of recent advances in designing and planning evaluations of natural experiments, including the relevance of a systems perspective, mixed methods and stakeholder involvement throughout the process. It provides an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, applicability and limitations of the range of methods now available, identifies issues of infrastructure and data governance, and provides good practice considerations.

Limitations: The framework does not provide detailed information for the substantial volume of themes and material covered, rather an overview of key issues to help the conduct and use of natural experimental evaluations.

Conclusion: This updated and extended framework provides an integrated guide to the use of natural experimental methods to evaluate population health interventions. The framework provides a range of tools to support its use and detailed, evidence-informed recommendations for researchers, funders, publishers, and users of evidence.

Study registration: This methodological project was not registered.

Funding: This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), with project reference MC_PC_21009. The work is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 13, No. 3.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信