Inclusion of quasi-experimental studies in systematic reviews of health systems research

Highlights • Most systematic reviews of health systems research do not include quasi-experimental studies. • We identify and critically discuss five commonly used study designs that are quasi-experimental: natural experiments and instrumental variable, regression discontinuity, interrupted time seri...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health policy (Amsterdam) 2015-04, Vol.119 (4), p.511-521
Main Authors: Rockers, Peter C, Røttingen, John-Arne, Shemilt, Ian, Tugwell, Peter, Bärnighausen, Till
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Difference-in-difference studies
Education
Environmental health
Epidemiology
Evidence
Evidence-Based Practice
Health administration
Health Services Research
Instrumental variable analysis
Internal Medicine
Interrupted time series
Political science
Quasi-experimental studies
Regression Analysis
Regression discontinuity designs
Research Design
Review Literature as Topic
Systematic reviews
Trials
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!
Description
Summary:Highlights • Most systematic reviews of health systems research do not include quasi-experimental studies. • We identify and critically discuss five commonly used study designs that are quasi-experimental: natural experiments and instrumental variable, regression discontinuity, interrupted time series, and difference-in-difference analysis. • Other fields that utilize systematic reviews commonly include quasi-experimental designs in evidence synthesis. • We review the guidelines in three fields – education, development studies, environmental studies – on identifying, evaluating and synthesizing quasi-experimental evidence. • Guidelines regarding the inclusion of quasi-experiments in systematic reviews in health systems research are needed.
ISSN:0168-8510
1872-6054
DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.10.006