↓ Skip to main content

Advancing ‘real-world’ trials that take account of social context and human volition

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

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%