Natural experiments: an underused tool for public health?
Natural experiments: an underused tool for public health?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.puhe.2004.11.008
复制
发表时间：
2005-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Sparks, L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Petticrew, M;Cummins, S;Sparks, L
政策制定者和公共卫生研究人员都要求更好地证明干预措施对健康不平等的影响。这些呼吁最近在英国的Wantess最终报告中得到了重申，该报告谈到“几乎完全缺乏关于公共卫生干预措施成本效益的证据基础”，并更普遍地指出公共卫生政策和实践的证据基础有限。Wantess和其他人认为，可以通过利用“自然实验”提供的机会，如就业机会，住房供应或卷烟价格的变化，来部分填补这些差距。自然实验在健康不平等议程中做出了重要贡献。首先，它们可以在调查健康不平等的决定因素方面发挥重要作用。第二，它们可以协助确定有效的干预措施，人们普遍承认，这一领域的证据基础目前很少。本文讨论了一些使用这种类型的证据的好处和局限性，借鉴两个正在进行的准实验研究的例子。(c)2005年，皇家公共卫生研究所。出版社：Elsevier Ltd. AtI. rights reserved.
Policymakers and public health researchers alike have demanded better evidence of the effects of interventions on health inequalities. These calls have been repeated most recently in the UK in the final Wantess report, which spoke of the "almost complete lack of an evidence base on the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions", and pointed more generally to the limited evidence base for public health policy and practice. Wantess and others have suggested that the gaps may be partially filled by exploiting the opportunities offered by "natural experiments", such as changes in employment opportunities, housing provision, or cigarette pricing. Natural experiments have an important contributions to make within the health inequalities agenda. First, they can play an important role in investigating the determinants of health inequalities. Second, they can assist in the identification of effective interventions, an area where it is widely acknowledged that the evidence-base is currently sparsely populated. This paper discusses some of the benefits and limitations of using this type of evidence, drawing on two ongoing quasi-experimental studies as examples. (c) 2005 The Royal Institute of Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. AtI. rights reserved.