Hansen Anders Blædel Gottlieb, Jones Allan
Strategic Research and Development Support, Metropolitan University College, Tagensvej 18, Copenhagen N, 2200, Denmark.
Bachelor's Degree in Global Nutrition and Health, Faculty of Health and Technology, Metropolitan University College, Sigurdsgade 26, Copenhagen N, 2200, Denmark.
Trials. 2017 Nov 10;18(1):531. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2286-8.
The recent paper in Trials by Porter and colleagues highlights the utility of applying a critical realism approach in randomised trials, an approach central to the Medical Research Council's (MRC) Framework for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Healthcare Interventions. The MRC framework offers a pragmatic step towards a more open systems approach that bridges randomised evaluation with social context and human agency in an effort to improve the generalisability of trial outcomes.
The MRC framework has contributed to the proliferation of a more open systems approach in health research; however, the broader acceptance of the realist approach to health research does not seem to be emulated by norms in research fund allocation, which largely prioritises laboratory-based research.
This commentary is simply a plea, to those who make the strategic decisions regarding allocation of research funding, to support all phases of health intervention research in complex systems that contribute to the development of effective, translational and sustainable interventions in the promotion of health.
波特及其同事近期发表在《试验》杂志上的论文强调了在随机试验中应用批判实在论方法的效用，该方法是医学研究理事会（MRC）复杂医疗保健干预措施开发与评估框架的核心。MRC框架朝着更开放的系统方法迈出了务实的一步，这种方法将随机评估与社会背景和人类能动性联系起来，以提高试验结果的普遍性。
MRC框架推动了健康研究中更开放系统方法的普及；然而，健康研究现实主义方法的更广泛接受似乎并未被研究资金分配规范所效仿，研究资金分配在很大程度上优先考虑基于实验室的研究。
本评论只是向那些做出研究资金分配战略决策的人发出呼吁，支持复杂系统中健康干预研究的所有阶段，这些研究有助于开发促进健康的有效、转化性和可持续干预措施。
