Mercer Shawna L, DeVinney Barbara J, Fine Lawrence J, Green Lawrence W, Dougherty Denise
Guide to Community Preventive Services, National Center for Health Marketing, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
Am J Prev Med. 2007 Aug;33(2):139-154. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.005.
Practitioners and policymakers need credible evidence of effectiveness to justify allocating resources to complex, expensive health programs. Investigators, however, face challenges in designing sound effectiveness and translation research with relevance for "real-world" settings.
Research experts and federal and foundation funders (n= approximately 120) prepared for and participated in a symposium, held May 4-5, 2004, to weigh the strengths, limitations, and trade-offs between alternate designs for studying the effectiveness and translation of complex, multilevel health interventions.
Symposium attendees acknowledged that research phases (hypothesis generating, efficacy, effectiveness, translation) are iterative and cyclical, not linear, since research in advanced phases may reveal unanswered questions in earlier phases. Research questions thus always need to drive the choice of study design. When randomization and experimental control are feasible, participants noted that the randomized controlled trial with individual random assignment remains the gold standard for safeguarding internal validity. Attendees highlighted trade-offs of randomized controlled trial variants, quasi-experimental designs, and natural experiments for use when randomization or experimental control or both are impossible or inadequately address external validity. Participants discussed enhancements to all designs to increase confidence in causal inference while accommodating greater external validity. Since no single study can establish causality, participants encouraged replication of studies and triangulation using different study designs. Participants also recommended participatory research approaches for building population relevance, acceptability, and usefulness.
Consideration of the study design choices, trade-offs, and enhancements discussed here can guide the design, funding, completion, and publication of appropriate policy- and practice-oriented effectiveness and translational research for complex, multilevel health interventions.
从业者和政策制定者需要有效力的可靠证据,以证明将资源分配给复杂、昂贵的健康项目是合理的。然而,研究人员在设计与“现实世界”环境相关的合理效力和转化研究时面临挑战。
研究专家以及联邦和基金会资助者(约120人)为2004年5月4日至5日举行的一次研讨会做准备并参与其中,以权衡研究复杂、多层次健康干预措施的效力和转化的替代设计之间的优势、局限性和权衡取舍。
研讨会与会者承认,研究阶段(假设生成、疗效、效力、转化)是迭代和循环的,而非线性的,因为后期阶段的研究可能会揭示早期阶段未解决的问题。因此,研究问题始终需要驱动研究设计的选择。当随机化和实验对照可行时,与会者指出,个体随机分配的随机对照试验仍然是保障内部效度的金标准。与会者强调了随机对照试验变体、准实验设计和自然实验在随机化或实验对照或两者都不可能或无法充分解决外部效度问题时的权衡取舍。参与者讨论了对所有设计的改进,以增强对因果推断的信心,同时提高外部效度。由于没有一项研究能够确立因果关系,参与者鼓励进行研究复制,并使用不同的研究设计进行三角互证。参与者还推荐采用参与式研究方法,以增强与人群的相关性、可接受性和实用性。
考虑本文讨论的研究设计选择、权衡取舍和改进措施,可为复杂、多层次健康干预措施的适当的面向政策和实践的效力及转化研究的设计、资助、完成和发表提供指导。