Simon Gilbody1, Paula Whitty. 1. Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9LT, UK. s.m.gilbody@leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an ethical imperative to evaluate service and policy initiatives, such as those highlighted in the recent National Service Framework, just as there is to evaluate individual treatments. AIMS: To outline the best methods available for evaluating the delivery and organisation of mental health services. METHOD: We present a narrative methodological overview, using salient examples from mental health services research. RESULTS: Cluster randomised studies involve the random allocation of groups of clinicians, clinical teams or hospitals rather than individual patients, and produce the least biased evaluation of mental health policy, organisation or service delivery. Where randomisation is impossible or impractical (often when services or policies are already implemented), then quasi-experimental designs can be used. Such designs have both strengths and many potential flaws. CONCLUSIONS: The gold standard remains the randomised trial, but with due consideration to the unit of randomisation. Use of quasi-experimental designs can be justified in certain circumstances but should be attempted and interpreted with caution.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is an ethical imperative to evaluate service and policy initiatives, such as those highlighted in the recent National Service Framework, just as there is to evaluate individual treatments. AIMS: To outline the best methods available for evaluating the delivery and organisation of mental health services. METHOD: We present a narrative methodological overview, using salient examples from mental health services research. RESULTS: Cluster randomised studies involve the random allocation of groups of clinicians, clinical teams or hospitals rather than individual patients, and produce the least biased evaluation of mental health policy, organisation or service delivery. Where randomisation is impossible or impractical (often when services or policies are already implemented), then quasi-experimental designs can be used. Such designs have both strengths and many potential flaws. CONCLUSIONS: The gold standard remains the randomised trial, but with due consideration to the unit of randomisation. Use of quasi-experimental designs can be justified in certain circumstances but should be attempted and interpreted with caution.
Authors: Lindsay McMahon; Karin M Foran; Stephen D Forrest; Michelle L Taylor; Graham Ingram; Madhuri Rajwal; Peter L Cornwall; R Hamish McAllister-Williams Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Maritta Välimäki; Kati Anneli Kannisto; Tero Vahlberg; Heli Hätönen; Clive E Adams Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Andreas Heissel; Anou Pietrek; Melanie Schwefel; Kahar Abula; Gregor Wilbertz; Stephan Heinzel; Michael Rapp Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Linda Gask; Peter Bower; Jonathan Lamb; Heather Burroughs; Carolyn Chew-Graham; Suzanne Edwards; Derek Hibbert; Marija Kovandžić; Karina Lovell; Anne Rogers; Waquas Waheed; Christopher Dowrick Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.655