MRC Population Health Sciences Research Network and Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates, St Andrews House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG, UK.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Dec;66(12):1182-6. doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200375. Epub 2012 May 10.
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.
自然实验研究通常被推荐用于了解政策和其他大规模干预措施对健康的影响。尽管它们相对于计划性实验具有某些优势,并且在无法操纵干预措施暴露的情况下可能是唯一的选择,但自然实验研究更容易受到偏差的影响。本文介绍了医学研究理事会的新指南,以帮助研究人员和用户、研究证据的资助者和出版商充分利用自然实验方法来评估人群健康干预措施。该指南强调,即使影响较小或需要时间显现,自然实验也可以提供令人信服的影响证据。然而,需要很好地了解决定干预措施暴露的过程,并谨慎选择和组合方法、测试假设以及透明报告至关重要。随着有前途但使用较少的方法经验的积累,未来可以从自然实验中学到更多。