Elliott S A, Brown J S L
School of Social Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Behav Res Ther. 2002 Sep;40(9):1047-52. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7967(01)00082-1.
For ethical reasons waiting list controls have been preferred to no treatment controls, provided the wait is still shorter than that for routine services. However, could significant differences arise from the wait being detrimental rather than the intervention being beneficial? Despite the number of studies employing this design, few have analysed intervention trials from the perspective of the waiting list controls rather than the experimental group. A Full Day Stress Management Workshop programme which had run successfully in Birmingham, was repeated in three areas in the South East of England. The data from the four areas were reanalysed to assess progress within the control group and to compare the final assessment points for the two groups. The control group did not show any significant deterioration during the three month wait for their workshop. Three months after their respective workshops, scores in the control groups did not differ significantly from those of the experimental group.
出于伦理原因，在等待时间仍短于常规服务的情况下，等待名单对照比无治疗对照更受青睐。然而，显著差异会不会是由等待有害而非干预有益导致的呢？尽管有许多研究采用了这种设计，但很少有研究从等待名单对照而非实验组的角度分析干预试验。一个在伯明翰成功开展的全日制压力管理工作坊项目，在英格兰东南部的三个地区重复进行。对来自这四个地区的数据进行重新分析，以评估对照组的进展情况，并比较两组的最终评估点。对照组在等待工作坊的三个月期间没有出现任何显著恶化。在各自参加工作坊三个月后，对照组的得分与实验组的得分没有显著差异。
