Evaluating policy and service interventions: framework to guide selection and interpretation of study end points

The effect of many cost effective policy and service interventions cannot be detected at the level of the patient. This new framework could help improve the design (especially choice of primary end point) and interpretation of evaluative studies

[1]  Karl Claxton,et al.  Dimensions of Design Space: A Decision-Theoretic Approach to Optimal Research Design , 2009, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[2]  Richard J Lilford,et al.  Should the UK government's deep cleaning of hospitals programme have been evaluated? , 2009 .

[3]  R. Lilford,et al.  Evaluating service delivery interventions to enhance patient safety , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  Paul Barach,et al.  A prospective observational study of human factors, adverse events, and patient outcomes in surgery for pediatric cardiac disease. , 2008, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[5]  P. Shirley,et al.  The Safer Patients Initiative: the UK experience of attempting to improve safe clinical care , 2008, The Medical journal of Australia.

[6]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  R. Thomson,et al.  An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 3. End points and measurement , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[8]  R J Lilford,et al.  An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 1. Conceptualising and developing interventions , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[9]  R J Lilford,et al.  An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 2. Study design , 2008, Quality & Safety in Health Care.

[10]  K. Goulston,et al.  Changes to the University of Sydney medical curriculum , 2008 .

[11]  Paul Barach,et al.  Housestaff and medical student attitudes toward medical errors and adverse events. , 2007, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[12]  Richard J. Lilford,et al.  Investing in new medical technologies: A decision framework , 2007 .

[13]  Jon Nicholl,et al.  Inter-rater reliability of case-note audit: a systematic review , 2007, Journal of health services research & policy.

[14]  Alan J Girling,et al.  Modeling payback from research into the efficacy of left-ventricular assist devices as destination therapy , 2007, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[15]  Alan J Girling,et al.  Sample-size calculations for trials that inform individual treatment decisions: a ‘true-choice’ approach , 2007, Clinical trials.

[16]  P. Pronovost,et al.  An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  J. Perlin,et al.  Improving performance through knowledge translation in the Veterans Health Administration , 2006, The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.

[18]  P. Fayers,et al.  Determinants of the intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials: the case of implementation research , 2005, Clinical trials.

[19]  D. Bates,et al.  Effect of reducing interns' work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  T. Brennan,et al.  Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I* , 2004, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[21]  R J Lilford,et al.  The measurement of active errors: methodological issues , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

[22]  Robert E Black,et al.  Effect of pneumonia case management on mortality in neonates, infants, and preschool children: a meta-analysis of community-based trials. , 2003, The Lancet. Infectious diseases.

[23]  Richard J. Lilford,et al.  Reconciling the Quantitative and Qualitative Traditions—The Bayesian Approach , 2003 .

[24]  David M. Murray,et al.  Methods To Reduce The Impact Of Intraclass Correlation In Group-Randomized Trials , 2003, Evaluation review.

[25]  Richard J Lilford,et al.  Ethical issues in the design and conduct of cluster randomised controlled trials , 1999, BMJ.

[26]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  North of England evidence based guidelines development project: methods of guideline development , 1996, BMJ.

[27]  Y. Donchin,et al.  A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit* , 1995, Critical care medicine.

[28]  Tony Cornford,et al.  Experience with a structure, process and outcome framework for evaluating an information system , 1994 .

[29]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Publication Bias: The Problem That Won't Go Away , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[30]  W B Runciman,et al.  Qualitative versus quantitative research — balancing cost, yield and feasibility* , 1993 .

[31]  J. LoGerfo.  Explorations in Quality Assessment and Monitoring. Volume I: The Definitions of Quality and Approaches to its Assessment , 1981 .

[32]  Daniel Garber,et al.  The immortality of the human soul, demonstrated by the light of nature , 2002 .