Literature DB >> 22461063

Randomised health services studies.

Matti Hakama1, Nea Malila, Joakim Dillner.   

Abstract

The randomised controlled (or clinical) trial (RCT) is recognized as the most valid among the study designs. The use of RCT in research is widespread and well formalised. In contrast, implementations of new methods and policies in routine health care are commonly lacking a formalised design, impairing the ability to evaluate and improve health care. Use of experimental designs in health care is possible at the implementation phase of clinical or preventive action or more broad process-of-care. We propose the terminology randomised health services studies (RHS) to denote the use of a randomised design with observations in routine health care, regardless of whether randomisation is done at individual, population or process level. In contrast to RCT, the RHS should be based on the same regulative actions, funding mechanisms and ethical framework as routine health care itself. This commentary discusses the different basis, practicalities, and formalities that distinguish the RHS from the RCT. Development of a formalised framework for RHS, including distinct registration, could contribute to an increased use of valid methods in effectiveness research, thus gaining better and more direct evidence on routine medical practice.
Copyright © 2012 UICC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22461063     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.27561

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  9 in total

Review 1.  Epigenome-based cancer risk prediction: rationale, opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Martin Widschwendter; Allison Jones; Iona Evans; Daniel Reisel; Joakim Dillner; Karin Sundström; Ewout W Steyerberg; Yvonne Vergouwe; Odette Wegwarth; Felix G Rebitschek; Uwe Siebert; Gaby Sroczynski; Inez D de Beaufort; Ineke Bolt; David Cibula; Michal Zikan; Line Bjørge; Nicoletta Colombo; Nadia Harbeck; Frank Dudbridge; Anne-Marie Tasse; Bartha M Knoppers; Yann Joly; Andrew E Teschendorff; Nora Pashayan
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer with a faecal occult-blood test, in Finland.

Authors:  J Pitkäniemi; K Seppä; M Hakama; O Malminiemi; T Palva; M-S Vuoristo; H Järvinen; H Paimela; P Pikkarainen; A Anttila; L Elovainio; T Hakulinen; S Karjalainen; L Pylkkänen; M Rautalahti; T Sarkeala; H Vertio; N Malila
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-06-08

3.  Comparative effectiveness study on human papillomavirus detection methods used in the cervical cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Mari Nygård; Kjetil Røysland; Suzanne Campbell; Joakim Dillner
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Use of hospital resources in the Finnish colorectal cancer screening programme: a randomised health services study.

Authors:  Suvi Mäklin; Matti Hakama; Pekka Rissanen; Nea Malila
Journal:  BMJ Open Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-12-21

5.  Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention.

Authors:  Stefan Lönnberg; Trude Andreassen; Birgit Engesæter; Rune Lilleng; Cecilia Kleven; Annelie Skare; Karin Johansson; Christina Stangeland Fredheim; Ameli Tropé
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  Early detection and prevention.

Authors:  Joakim Dillner
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 6.603

7.  Varying ethics rules in clinical research and routine patient care--research ethics committee chairpersons' views in Finland.

Authors:  Elina Hemminki; Jorma I Virtanen; Piret Veerus
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2014-03-25

8.  Randomised healthcare policy evaluation of organised primary human papillomavirus screening of women aged 56-60.

Authors:  Helena Lamin; Carina Eklund; Klara Miriam Elfström; Agneta Carlsten-Thor; Maria Hortlund; Kristina Elfgren; Sven Törnberg; Joakim Dillner
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 9.  Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement.

Authors:  Nora Pashayan; Antonis C Antoniou; Urska Ivanus; Laura J Esserman; Douglas F Easton; David French; Gaby Sroczynski; Per Hall; Jack Cuzick; D Gareth Evans; Jacques Simard; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Rita Schmutzler; Odette Wegwarth; Paul Pharoah; Sowmiya Moorthie; Sandrine De Montgolfier; Camille Baron; Zdenko Herceg; Clare Turnbull; Corinne Balleyguier; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Jelle Wesseling; David Ritchie; Marc Tischkowitz; Mireille Broeders; Dan Reisel; Andres Metspalu; Thomas Callender; Harry de Koning; Peter Devilee; Suzette Delaloge; Marjanka K Schmidt; Martin Widschwendter
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 65.011

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.