Natural Experiments: An Overview of Methods, Approaches, and Contributions to Public Health Intervention Research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Craig P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6485604 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Natural Experiments: An Overview of Methods, Approaches, and Contributions to Public Health Intervention Research.
Craig Peter P Katikireddi Srinivasa Vittal SV Leyland Alastair A Popham Frank F
Annual review of public health 20170111
Population health interventions are essential to reduce health inequalities and tackle other public health priorities, but they are not always amenable to experimental manipulation. Natural experiment (NE) approaches are attracting growing interest as a way of providing evidence in such circumstances. One key challenge in evaluating NEs is selective exposure to the intervention. Studies should be based on a clear theoretical understanding of the processes that determine exposure. Even if the obs ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundNatural or quasi experiments are appealing for public health research because they enable the evaluation of events or interventions that are difficult or impossible to manipulate experimentally, such as many policy and health system reforms. However, there remains ambiguity in the literature about their definition and how they differ from randomized controlled experiments and from other observational designs. We conceptualise natural experiments in the context of public health evaluations and align the study design to the Target Trial Framework.MethodsA literature search was conducted, and key methodological papers were used to develop this work. Peer-reviewed papers were supplemented by grey literature.ResultsNatural experiment studies (NES) combine features of experiments and non-experiments. They differ from planned experiments, such as randomized controlled trials, in that exposure allocation is not controlled by researchers. They differ from other observational designs in that they evaluate the impact of events or process that leads to differences in exposure. As a result they are, in theory, less susceptible to bias than other observational study designs. Importantly, causal inference relies heavily on the assumption that exposure allocation can be considered 'as-if randomized'. The target trial framework provides a systematic basis for evaluating this assumption and the other design elements that underpin the causal claims that can be made from NES.ConclusionsNES should be considered a type of study design rather than a set of tools for analyses of non-randomized interventions. Alignment of NES to the Target Trial framework will clarify the strength of evidence underpinning claims about the effectiveness of public health interventions.
| S-EPMC7879679 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe assess different approaches to seeking consent in research in secondary schools.DesignWe review evidence on seeking active versus passive parent/carer consent on participant response rates and profiles. We explore the legal and regulatory requirements governing student and parent/carer consent in the UK.ResultsEvidence demonstrates that requiring parent/carer active consent reduces response rates and introduces selection biases, which impact the rigour of research and hence its usefulness for assessing young people's needs. There is no evidence on the impacts of seeking active versus passive student consent but this is likely to be marginal when researchers are directly in communication with students in schools. There is no legal requirement to seek active parent/carer consent for children's involvement in research on non-medicinal intervention or observational studies. Such research is instead covered by common law, which indicates that it is acceptable to seek students' own active consent when they are judged competent. General data protection regulation legislation does not change this. It is generally accepted that most secondary school students age 11+ are competent to provide their own consent for interventions though this should be assessed individually.ConclusionAllowing parent/carer opt-out rights recognises their autonomy while giving primacy to student autonomy. In the case of intervention research, most interventions are delivered at the level of the school so consent can only practically be sought from head teachers. Where interventions are individually targeted, seeking student active consent for these should be considered where feasible.
| S-EPMC10277123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The methods section of a scientific article often receives the most scrutiny from journal editors, peer reviewers, and skeptical readers because it allows them to judge the validity of the results. The methods section also facilitates critical interpretation of study activities, explains how the study avoided or corrected for bias, details how the data support the answer to the study question, justifies generalizing the findings to other populations, and facilitates comparison with past or future studies. In 2006, the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Programme began collecting and disseminating guidelines for reporting health research studies. In addition, guidelines for reporting public health investigations not classified as research have also been developed. However, regardless of the type of study or scientific report, the methods section should describe certain core elements: the study design; how participants were selected; the study setting; the period of interest; the variables and their definitions used for analysis; the procedures or instruments used to measure exposures, outcomes, and their association; and the analyses. Specific requirements for each study type should be consulted during the project planning phase and again when writing begins. We present requirements for reporting methods for public health activities, including outbreak investigations, public health surveillance programs, prevention and intervention program evaluations, research, surveys, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
| S-EPMC5798489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInterventions need to be developed prior to the feasibility and piloting phase of a study. There are a variety of published approaches to developing interventions, programmes or innovations to improve health. Identifying different types of approach, and synthesising the range of actions taken within this endeavour, can inform future intervention development.MethodsThis study is a systematic methods overview of approaches to intervention development. Approaches were considered for inclusion if they described how to develop or adapt an intervention in a book, website or journal article published after 2007, or were cited in a primary research study reporting the development of a specific intervention published in 2015 or 2016. Approaches were read, a taxonomy of approaches was developed and the range of actions taken across different approaches were synthesised.ResultsEight categories of approach to intervention development were identified. (1) Partnership, where people who will use the intervention participate equally with the research team in decision-making about the intervention throughout the development process. (2) Target population-centred, where the intervention is based on the views and actions of the people who will use it. (3) Evidence and theory-based, where the intervention is based on published research evidence and existing theories. (4) Implementation-based, where the intervention is developed with attention to ensuring it will be used in the real world. (5) Efficiency-based, where components of an intervention are tested using experimental designs to select components which will optimise efficiency. (6) Stepped or phased, where interventions are developed with an emphasis on following a systematic set of processes. (7) Intervention-specific, where an approach is constructed for a specific type of intervention. (8) Combination, where existing approaches to intervention development are formally combined. The actions from approaches in all eight categories were synthesised to identify 18 actions to consider when developing interventions.ConclusionsThis overview of approaches to intervention development can help researchers to understand the variety of existing approaches, and to understand the range of possible actions involved in intervention development, prior to assessing feasibility or piloting the intervention. Findings from this overview will contribute to future guidance on intervention development.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017080553.
| S-EPMC6419435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Better alignment between academia and public health practice and policies are critical to improve public health actions. Training of future researchers to address complex issues and to conduct transdisciplinary and collaborative research will help improve this alignment. In this paper, we describe the role of internship placements and mentorship for trainees' skills development in population health intervention research and the benefits of embedding research trainees within public health organizations. Methods:This qualitative descriptive study assessed the perceptions of the role and benefits of internships and mentorship for population health intervention research training among former doctoral and postdoctoral students, public health mentors, and senior public health managers who participated in the 4P Program, a research training program which bridges academic training and the public health system in Quebec, Canada. Two types of interviews were conducted: telephone semi-structured interviews by an external evaluator and face-to-face trainee "exit" interviews by the Program co-director. Semi-annual evaluation reports from each trainee were also reviewed. Qualitative data were subjected to a thematic analysis. Results:Internships provided trainees with a working knowledge of the public health system and the context in which decisions and public health interventions are implemented. It was an opportunity for trainees to interact with knowledge-user partners and assess the gap between research and practice. Effective mentorship was key to help trainees interpret the public health reality and develop population health intervention research skills. Trainees learned to ask the "how" questions that are critical for in-depth understanding of complex interventions and the conditions under which they can be best implemented. Conditions of success of internships and mentorship for population health intervention research included the alignment of the interests between the trainee, the mentor and the public health organization, quality mentoring, and the acquisition of specific population health intervention skills, especially collaborative research skills. Conclusions:The findings suggest that public health internships and mentorship facilitate trainee engagement in applied public health research.
| S-EPMC5879914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Natural experimental studies are often recommended as a way of understanding the health impact of policies and other large scale interventions. Although they have certain advantages over planned experiments, and may be the only option when it is impossible to manipulate exposure to the intervention, natural experimental studies are more susceptible to bias. This paper introduces new guidance from the Medical Research Council to help researchers and users, funders and publishers of research evidence make the best use of natural experimental approaches to evaluating population health interventions. The guidance emphasises that natural experiments can provide convincing evidence of impact even when effects are small or take time to appear. However, a good understanding is needed of the process determining exposure to the intervention, and careful choice and combination of methods, testing of assumptions and transparent reporting is vital. More could be learnt from natural experiments in future as experience of promising but lesser used methods accumulates.
| S-EPMC3796763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dietary intake, eating behaviors, and context are important in chronic disease development, yet our ability to accurately assess these in research settings can be limited by biased traditional self-reporting tools. Objective measurement tools, specifically, wearable sensors, present the opportunity to minimize the major limitations of self-reported eating measures by generating supplementary sensor data that can improve the validity of self-report data in naturalistic settings. This scoping review summarizes the current use of wearable devices/sensors that automatically detect eating-related activity in naturalistic research settings. Five databases were searched in December 2019, and 618 records were retrieved from the literature search. This scoping review included N?=?40 studies (from 33 articles) that reported on one or more wearable sensors used to automatically detect eating activity in the field. The majority of studies (N?=?26, 65%) used multi-sensor systems (incorporating?>?1 wearable sensors), and accelerometers were the most commonly utilized sensor (N?=?25, 62.5%). All studies (N?=?40, 100.0%) used either self-report or objective ground-truth methods to validate the inferred eating activity detected by the sensor(s). The most frequently reported evaluation metrics were Accuracy (N?=?12) and F1-score (N?=?10). This scoping review highlights the current state of wearable sensors' ability to improve upon traditional eating assessment methods by passively detecting eating activity in naturalistic settings, over long periods of time, and with minimal user interaction. A key challenge in this field, wide variation in eating outcome measures and evaluation metrics, demonstrates the need for the development of a standardized form of comparability among sensors/multi-sensor systems and multidisciplinary collaboration.
| S-EPMC7069988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Natural experiments are increasingly valued as a way to assess the health impact of health and non-health interventions when planned controlled experimental research designs may be infeasible or inappropriate to implement. This study sought to investigate the value of natural experiments by exploring how they have been used in practice. The study focused on obesity prevention research as one complex programme area for applying natural experiment studies. METHODS:A literature search sought obesity prevention research from January 1997 to December 2017 and identified 46 population health studies that self-described as a natural experiment. RESULTS:The majority of studies identified were published in the last 5?years, illustrating a more recent adoption of such opportunities. The majority of studies were evaluations of the impact of policies (n?=?19), such as assessing changes to food labelling, food advertising or taxation on diet and obesity outcomes, or were built environment interventions (n?=?17), such as the impact of built infrastructure on physical activity or access to healthy food. Research designs included quasi-experimental, pre-experimental and non-experimental methods. Few studies applied rigorous research designs to establish stronger causal inference, such as multiple pre/post measures, time series designs or comparison of change against an unexposed group. In general, researchers employed techniques to enhance the study utility but often were limited in the use of more rigorous study designs by ethical considerations and/or the particular context of the intervention. CONCLUSION:Greater recognition of the utility and versatility of natural experiments in generating evidence for complex health issues like obesity prevention is needed. This review suggests that natural experiments may be underutilised as an approach for providing evidence of the effects of interventions, particularly for evaluating health outcomes of interventions when unexpected opportunities to gather evidence arise.
| S-EPMC7236508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHow to assess the impact of research is of growing interest to funders, policy makers and researchers mainly to understand the value of investments and to increase accountability. Broadly speaking the term "research impact" refers to the contribution of research activities to achieve desired societal outcomes. The aim of this overview is to identify the most common approaches to research impact assessment, categories of impact and their respective indicators.MethodsWe systematically searched the relevant literature (PubMed, The Cochrane Library (1990-2009)) and funding agency websites. We included systematic reviews, theoretical and methodological papers, and empirical case-studies on how to evaluate research impact. We qualitatively summarised the included reports, as well the conceptual frameworks.ResultsWe identified twenty-two reports belonging to four systematic reviews and 14 primary studies. These publications reported several theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches (bibliometrics, econometrics, ad hoc case studies). The "payback model" emerged as the most frequently used. Five broad categories of impact were identified: a) advancing knowledge, b) capacity building, c) informing decision-making, d) health benefits, e) broad socio-economic benefits. For each proposed category of impact we summarized a set of indicators whose pros and cons are presented and briefly discussed.ConclusionsThis overview is a comprehensive, yet descriptive, contribution to summarize the conceptual framework and taxonomy of an heterogeneous and evolving area of research. A shared and comprehensive conceptual framework does not seem to be available yet and its single components (epidemiologic, economic, and social) are often valued differently in different models.
| S-EPMC3141787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewThe volume of public health environmental justice (EJ) research produced by academic institutions increased through 2022. However, the methods used for evaluating EJ in exposure science and epidemiologic studies have not been catalogued. Here, we completed a scoping review of EJ studies published in 19 environmental science and epidemiologic journals from 2018 to 2021 to summarize research types, frameworks, and methods.Recent findingsWe identified 402 articles that included populations with health disparities as a part of EJ research question and met other inclusion criteria. Most studies (60%) evaluated EJ questions related to socioeconomic status (SES) or race/ethnicity. EJ studies took place in 69 countries, led by the US (n = 246 [61%]). Only 50% of studies explicitly described a theoretical EJ framework in the background, methods, or discussion and just 10% explicitly stated a framework in all three sections. Among exposure studies, the most common area-level exposure was air pollution (40%), whereas chemicals predominated personal exposure studies (35%). Overall, the most common method used for exposure-only EJ analyses was main effect regression modeling (50%); for epidemiologic studies the most common method was effect modification (58%), where an analysis evaluated a health disparity variable as an effect modifier. Based on the results of this scoping review, current methods in public health EJ studies could be bolstered by integrating expertise from other fields (e.g., sociology), conducting community-based participatory research and intervention studies, and using more rigorous, theory-based, and solution-oriented statistical research methods.
| S-EPMC10504232 | biostudies-literature