Predicting what will happen when we act. What counts for warrant?
Predicting what will happen when we act. What counts for warrant?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.08.011
复制
发表时间：
2011-10-01
影响因子：
5.1
通讯作者：
Cartwright, Nancy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cartwright, Nancy
随机对照试验的结果在多大程度上为我们预测潜在政策干预的有效性提供了信息？在关于循证政策的讨论中，这一关键问题往往被忽视。我所捍卫的观点是，从一个项目在某个地方起作用的主张，到对这个项目在这里实施时的有效性的预测，这些论点都建立在许多前提之上，其中大多数都不能用随机对照试验的结果来证明。随机对照试验只能为有效性提供间接证据，我们需要的不仅仅是随机对照试验结果来做出可靠的预测。(c)2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
To what extent do the results of randomized controlled trials inform our predictions about the effectiveness of potential policy interventions? This crucial question is often overlooked in discussions about evidence-based policy. The view I defend is that the arguments that lead from the claim that a program works somewhere to a prediction about the effectiveness of this program as it will be implemented here rests on many premises, most of which cannot be justified by the results of randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials only provide indirect evidence for effectiveness, and we need much more than just randomized-controlled-trial results to make reliable predictions. (c) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.