Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Natural experimental studies are often recommended as a way of understanding the health impact of policies and other large scale interventions. Although they have certain advantages over planned experiments, and may be the only option when it is impossible to manipulate exposure to the intervention, natural experimental studies are more susceptible to bias. This paper introduces new guidance from the Medical Research Council to help researchers and users, funders and publishers of research evidence make the best use of natural experimental approaches to evaluating population health interventions. The guidance emphasises that natural experiments can provide convincing evidence of impact even when effects are small or take time to appear. However, a good understanding is needed of the process determining exposure to the intervention, and careful choice and combination of methods, testing of assumptions and transparent reporting is vital. More could be learnt from natural experiments in future as experience of promising but lesser used methods accumulates.

Original publication

DOI

10.1136/jech-2011-200375

Type

Journal article

Journal

Journal of epidemiology and community health

Publication Date

12/2012

Volume

66

Pages

1182 - 1186

Addresses

MRC Population Health Sciences Research Network and Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates, St Andrews House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG, UK. peter.craig@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Keywords

Humans, Public Health, Biomedical Research, Research Design, Publishing, Periodicals as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Research Report