Title |
Advancing ‘real-world’ trials that take account of social context and human volition
|
---|---|
Published in |
Trials, November 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13063-017-2286-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anders Blædel Gottlieb Hansen, Allan Jones |
Abstract |
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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Canada | 4 | 15% |
United Kingdom | 4 | 15% |
Germany | 2 | 8% |
Australia | 1 | 4% |
South Africa | 1 | 4% |
Switzerland | 1 | 4% |
Senegal | 1 | 4% |
Mexico | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 11 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 13 | 50% |
Scientists | 10 | 38% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 8 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
Professor | 3 | 8% |
Other | 6 | 16% |
Unknown | 5 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Social Sciences | 10 | 26% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 18% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
Psychology | 2 | 5% |
Other | 3 | 8% |
Unknown | 10 | 26% |