Till Bärnighausen1, John-Arne Røttingen2, Peter Rockers3, Ian Shemilt4, Peter Tugwell5. 1. Heidelberg Institute of Public Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany; Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA; Africa Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Electronic address: tbarnighausen@africacentre.ac.za. 2. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA; Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. 3. Boston University, Boston, USA. 4. University College London (UCL), London, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to contrast the historical development of experiments and quasi-experiments and provide the motivation for a journal series on quasi-experimental designs in health research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A short historical narrative, with concrete examples, and arguments based on an understanding of the practice of health research and evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Health research has played a key role in developing today's gold standard for causal inference-the randomized controlled multiply blinded trial. Historically, allocation approaches developed from convenience and purposive allocation to alternate and, finally, to random allocation. This development was motivated both by concerns for manipulation in allocation as well as statistical and theoretical developments demonstrating the power of randomization in creating counterfactuals for causal inference. In contrast to the sequential development of experiments, quasi-experiments originated at very different points in time, from very different scientific perspectives, and with frequent and long interruptions in their methodological development. Health researchers have only recently started to recognize the value of quasi-experiments for generating novel insights on causal relationships. CONCLUSION: While quasi-experiments are unlikely to replace experiments in generating the efficacy and safety evidence required for clinical guidelines and regulatory approval of medical technologies, quasi-experiments can play an important role in establishing the effectiveness of health care practice, programs, and policies. The papers in this series describe and discuss a range of important issues in utilizing quasi-experimental designs for primary research and quasi-experimental results for evidence synthesis.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to contrast the historical development of experiments and quasi-experiments and provide the motivation for a journal series on quasi-experimental designs in health research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A short historical narrative, with concrete examples, and arguments based on an understanding of the practice of health research and evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Health research has played a key role in developing today's gold standard for causal inference-the randomized controlled multiply blinded trial. Historically, allocation approaches developed from convenience and purposive allocation to alternate and, finally, to random allocation. This development was motivated both by concerns for manipulation in allocation as well as statistical and theoretical developments demonstrating the power of randomization in creating counterfactuals for causal inference. In contrast to the sequential development of experiments, quasi-experiments originated at very different points in time, from very different scientific perspectives, and with frequent and long interruptions in their methodological development. Health researchers have only recently started to recognize the value of quasi-experiments for generating novel insights on causal relationships. CONCLUSION: While quasi-experiments are unlikely to replace experiments in generating the efficacy and safety evidence required for clinical guidelines and regulatory approval of medical technologies, quasi-experiments can play an important role in establishing the effectiveness of health care practice, programs, and policies. The papers in this series describe and discuss a range of important issues in utilizing quasi-experimental designs for primary research and quasi-experimental results for evidence synthesis.
Authors: James D Nordin; Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez; Avalow Olsen; Leslie C Kuckler; Ashley Y Gao; Elyse O Kharbanda Journal: Vaccine Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Jacob Burns; Hanna Boogaard; Stephanie Polus; Lisa M Pfadenhauer; Anke C Rohwer; Annemoon M van Erp; Ruth Turley; Eva Rehfuess Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-05-20
Authors: Frank de Vocht; Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi; Cheryl McQuire; Kate Tilling; Matthew Hickman; Peter Craig Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 4.612
Authors: Yuan-Jin Zhang; Yan Ren; Quan Zheng; Jing Tan; Ming-Hong Yao; Yun-Xiang Huang; Xia Zhang; Kang Zou; Shao-Yang Zhao; Xin Sun Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-08-12
Authors: Jan A C Hontelez; Jacob Bor; Frank C Tanser; Deenan Pillay; Mosa Moshabela; Till Bärnighausen Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 9.048
Authors: Mahmut Ilker Yilmaz; Micol Romano; Mustafa Kemal Basarali; Abdelbaset Elzagallaai; Murat Karaman; Zeynep Demir; Muhammet Fatih Demir; Fatih Akcay; Melik Seyrek; Nuri Haksever; David Piskin; Rolando Cimaz; Michael J Rieder; Erkan Demirkaya Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 4.379