Loading…
The appraisal of public health interventions: the use of theory
Public health decision-making is hampered by inappropriate adherence to underpowered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which give inconclusive results and lead to decision-makers being loath to recommend interventions with strong theoretical and observational support. We outline situations in whic...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of public health (Oxford, England) England), 2015-03, Vol.37 (1), p.166-171 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-603601ff94bf6e984a4e176693deab28c39008f475833f02eb2f427517ae66673 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-603601ff94bf6e984a4e176693deab28c39008f475833f02eb2f427517ae66673 |
container_end_page | 171 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 166 |
container_title | Journal of public health (Oxford, England) |
container_volume | 37 |
creator | Threlfall, Anthony G. Meah, Soraya Fischer, Alastair J. Cookson, Richard Rutter, Harry Kelly, Michael P. |
description | Public health decision-making is hampered by inappropriate adherence to underpowered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which give inconclusive results and lead to decision-makers being loath to recommend interventions with strong theoretical and observational support.
We outline situations in which robust decisions about health interventions can be made without trial evidence. We present a new approach in which theory, causal models and past observations are given proper regard in the decision-making process.
Using our approach, we provide examples where the use of causal theories and observations in areas, such as salt reduction, smoking cessation and gardening to improve mental health, is sufficient for deciding that such interventions are effective for improving health without needing the support of underpowered RCTs. Particularly where RCT evidence is inconclusive, our approach may provide similar aggregate health outcomes for society for vastly lower cost.
When knowledge and theoretical understanding are unable sufficiently to reduce doubt about the direction of effect from an intervention, decisions should be made using evidence-based medicine approaches. There are, however, many cases where the combination of robust theory, causal understanding and observation are able to provide sufficient evidence of the direction of effect from an intervention that current practice should be altered. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/pubmed/fdu044 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1701476136</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48515300</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48515300</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-603601ff94bf6e984a4e176693deab28c39008f475833f02eb2f427517ae66673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQQC0EoqUwMoIyMhB6_o5HVPElVWIps-WkZzVVmgQ7QeLfNyhtV6Y73T294RFyS-GJguHzts93uJ77dQ9CnJEp1YKmPJNwftoFm5CrGLcAzDCQl2TCJFAptZmSx9UGE9e2wZXRVUnjk0FYlUWyQVd1m6SsOww_WHdlU8drcuFdFfHmMGfk6_VltXhPl59vH4vnZVpIprtUAVdAvTci9wpNJpxAqpUyfI0uZ1nBDUDmhZYZ5x4Y5swLpiXVDpVSms_Iw-htQ_PdY-zsrowFVpWrsemjpRqo0Ipy9T-qZKaBa8MHNB3RIjQxBvS2DeXOhV9Lwf61tGNLO7Yc-PuDejwf6WO8AbgbgW3smnD6i0xSyQH4HntKeMs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1658703793</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The appraisal of public health interventions: the use of theory</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><creator>Threlfall, Anthony G. ; Meah, Soraya ; Fischer, Alastair J. ; Cookson, Richard ; Rutter, Harry ; Kelly, Michael P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Threlfall, Anthony G. ; Meah, Soraya ; Fischer, Alastair J. ; Cookson, Richard ; Rutter, Harry ; Kelly, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><description>Public health decision-making is hampered by inappropriate adherence to underpowered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which give inconclusive results and lead to decision-makers being loath to recommend interventions with strong theoretical and observational support.
We outline situations in which robust decisions about health interventions can be made without trial evidence. We present a new approach in which theory, causal models and past observations are given proper regard in the decision-making process.
Using our approach, we provide examples where the use of causal theories and observations in areas, such as salt reduction, smoking cessation and gardening to improve mental health, is sufficient for deciding that such interventions are effective for improving health without needing the support of underpowered RCTs. Particularly where RCT evidence is inconclusive, our approach may provide similar aggregate health outcomes for society for vastly lower cost.
When knowledge and theoretical understanding are unable sufficiently to reduce doubt about the direction of effect from an intervention, decisions should be made using evidence-based medicine approaches. There are, however, many cases where the combination of robust theory, causal understanding and observation are able to provide sufficient evidence of the direction of effect from an intervention that current practice should be altered.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1741-3842</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1741-3850</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdu044</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25015579</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Decision Making ; Evidence-Based Medicine - methods ; Evidence-Based Medicine - organization & administration ; Health Promotion - methods ; Health Promotion - organization & administration ; Humans ; Methods ; Models, Organizational ; Program Evaluation ; Public Health - methods ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><ispartof>Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2015-03, Vol.37 (1), p.166-171</ispartof><rights>The Author 2014</rights><rights>The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-603601ff94bf6e984a4e176693deab28c39008f475833f02eb2f427517ae66673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-603601ff94bf6e984a4e176693deab28c39008f475833f02eb2f427517ae66673</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48515300$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48515300$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,58238,58471</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25015579$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Threlfall, Anthony G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meah, Soraya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Alastair J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cookson, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutter, Harry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelly, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><title>The appraisal of public health interventions: the use of theory</title><title>Journal of public health (Oxford, England)</title><addtitle>J Public Health (Oxf)</addtitle><description>Public health decision-making is hampered by inappropriate adherence to underpowered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which give inconclusive results and lead to decision-makers being loath to recommend interventions with strong theoretical and observational support.
We outline situations in which robust decisions about health interventions can be made without trial evidence. We present a new approach in which theory, causal models and past observations are given proper regard in the decision-making process.
Using our approach, we provide examples where the use of causal theories and observations in areas, such as salt reduction, smoking cessation and gardening to improve mental health, is sufficient for deciding that such interventions are effective for improving health without needing the support of underpowered RCTs. Particularly where RCT evidence is inconclusive, our approach may provide similar aggregate health outcomes for society for vastly lower cost.
When knowledge and theoretical understanding are unable sufficiently to reduce doubt about the direction of effect from an intervention, decisions should be made using evidence-based medicine approaches. There are, however, many cases where the combination of robust theory, causal understanding and observation are able to provide sufficient evidence of the direction of effect from an intervention that current practice should be altered.</description><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine - methods</subject><subject>Evidence-Based Medicine - organization & administration</subject><subject>Health Promotion - methods</subject><subject>Health Promotion - organization & administration</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Models, Organizational</subject><subject>Program Evaluation</subject><subject>Public Health - methods</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><issn>1741-3842</issn><issn>1741-3850</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQQC0EoqUwMoIyMhB6_o5HVPElVWIps-WkZzVVmgQ7QeLfNyhtV6Y73T294RFyS-GJguHzts93uJ77dQ9CnJEp1YKmPJNwftoFm5CrGLcAzDCQl2TCJFAptZmSx9UGE9e2wZXRVUnjk0FYlUWyQVd1m6SsOww_WHdlU8drcuFdFfHmMGfk6_VltXhPl59vH4vnZVpIprtUAVdAvTci9wpNJpxAqpUyfI0uZ1nBDUDmhZYZ5x4Y5swLpiXVDpVSms_Iw-htQ_PdY-zsrowFVpWrsemjpRqo0Ipy9T-qZKaBa8MHNB3RIjQxBvS2DeXOhV9Lwf61tGNLO7Yc-PuDejwf6WO8AbgbgW3smnD6i0xSyQH4HntKeMs</recordid><startdate>20150301</startdate><enddate>20150301</enddate><creator>Threlfall, Anthony G.</creator><creator>Meah, Soraya</creator><creator>Fischer, Alastair J.</creator><creator>Cookson, Richard</creator><creator>Rutter, Harry</creator><creator>Kelly, Michael P.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150301</creationdate><title>The appraisal of public health interventions</title><author>Threlfall, Anthony G. ; Meah, Soraya ; Fischer, Alastair J. ; Cookson, Richard ; Rutter, Harry ; Kelly, Michael P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-603601ff94bf6e984a4e176693deab28c39008f475833f02eb2f427517ae66673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine - methods</topic><topic>Evidence-Based Medicine - organization & administration</topic><topic>Health Promotion - methods</topic><topic>Health Promotion - organization & administration</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Models, Organizational</topic><topic>Program Evaluation</topic><topic>Public Health - methods</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Threlfall, Anthony G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meah, Soraya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Alastair J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cookson, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutter, Harry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelly, Michael P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Journal of public health (Oxford, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Threlfall, Anthony G.</au><au>Meah, Soraya</au><au>Fischer, Alastair J.</au><au>Cookson, Richard</au><au>Rutter, Harry</au><au>Kelly, Michael P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The appraisal of public health interventions: the use of theory</atitle><jtitle>Journal of public health (Oxford, England)</jtitle><addtitle>J Public Health (Oxf)</addtitle><date>2015-03-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>166</spage><epage>171</epage><pages>166-171</pages><issn>1741-3842</issn><eissn>1741-3850</eissn><abstract>Public health decision-making is hampered by inappropriate adherence to underpowered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which give inconclusive results and lead to decision-makers being loath to recommend interventions with strong theoretical and observational support.
We outline situations in which robust decisions about health interventions can be made without trial evidence. We present a new approach in which theory, causal models and past observations are given proper regard in the decision-making process.
Using our approach, we provide examples where the use of causal theories and observations in areas, such as salt reduction, smoking cessation and gardening to improve mental health, is sufficient for deciding that such interventions are effective for improving health without needing the support of underpowered RCTs. Particularly where RCT evidence is inconclusive, our approach may provide similar aggregate health outcomes for society for vastly lower cost.
When knowledge and theoretical understanding are unable sufficiently to reduce doubt about the direction of effect from an intervention, decisions should be made using evidence-based medicine approaches. There are, however, many cases where the combination of robust theory, causal understanding and observation are able to provide sufficient evidence of the direction of effect from an intervention that current practice should be altered.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>25015579</pmid><doi>10.1093/pubmed/fdu044</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1741-3842 |
ispartof | Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2015-03, Vol.37 (1), p.166-171 |
issn | 1741-3842 1741-3850 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1701476136 |
source | JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Oxford Journals Online |
subjects | Decision Making Evidence-Based Medicine - methods Evidence-Based Medicine - organization & administration Health Promotion - methods Health Promotion - organization & administration Humans Methods Models, Organizational Program Evaluation Public Health - methods Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic |
title | The appraisal of public health interventions: the use of theory |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T23%3A29%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20appraisal%20of%20public%20health%20interventions:%20the%20use%20of%20theory&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20public%20health%20(Oxford,%20England)&rft.au=Threlfall,%20Anthony%20G.&rft.date=2015-03-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=166&rft.epage=171&rft.pages=166-171&rft.issn=1741-3842&rft.eissn=1741-3850&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/pubmed/fdu044&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48515300%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-603601ff94bf6e984a4e176693deab28c39008f475833f02eb2f427517ae66673%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1658703793&rft_id=info:pmid/25015579&rft_jstor_id=48515300&rfr_iscdi=true |