The 2 “Es” of Research: Efficacy and Effectiveness Trials

Studies that investigate the usefulness of various therapies fall along a continuum that ranges from those looking at whether an intervention can work under ideal circumstances (efficacy trials) to those that focus on whether a treatment works when applied in the real world (effectiveness trials). Whether a study is closer to one end of the spectrum or the other affects almost every aspect of the trial. These aspects include which patients are eligible for enrolment, the degree of control over the way the intervention is delivered, which patients are or are not included in the analyses, how missing data are handled, and even which statistical tests may be used. The 2 types of trials may yield different results, but both provide useful information. This paper explores these issues, shows the decisions researchers must take at each phase of a trial, and discusses how clinicians should interpret the results.

[1]  D. Klein,et al.  Placebo run-in period in studies of depressive disorders , 1998, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[2]  M. Hotopf,et al.  Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in psychiatry , 1999, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[3]  T. Sensky,et al.  A randomized controlled trial of cognitive-behavioral therapy for persistent symptoms in schizophrenia resistant to medication. , 2000, Archives of general psychiatry.

[4]  I. Elkin,et al.  NIMH Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program. Background and research plan. , 1985, Archives of general psychiatry.

[5]  Robert J. DeRubeis,et al.  The use of psychotherapy treatment manuals: A small revolution in psychotherapy research style , 1984 .

[6]  R. Hyman Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings (Book) , 1982 .

[7]  V. Hachinski,et al.  Long-term prognosis and effect of endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis and contralateral carotid stenosis or occlusion: results from NASCET. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) Group. , 1995, Journal of neurosurgery.

[8]  Evolving methodologies in bipolar disorder maintenance research , 2001, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[9]  D. Streiner Do You See What I Mean? Indices of Central Tendency , 2000, Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie.

[10]  D. Sackett,et al.  Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. , 1979, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  R. Kohnen,et al.  Hypericum extract versus imipramine or placebo in patients with moderate depression: randomised multicentre study of treatment for eight weeks. , 1999, BMJ.

[12]  Geoffrey R. Norman,et al.  Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials , 1993 .

[13]  T. Cook,et al.  Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings , 1979 .

[14]  J. Weisz,et al.  Bridging the gap between laboratory and clinic in child and adolescent psychotherapy. , 1995, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[15]  D. Streiner Risky Business: Making Sense of Estimates of Risk , 1998, Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie.

[16]  David L Streiner,et al.  The Case of the Missing Data: Methods of Dealing with Dropouts and other Research Vagaries , 2002, Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie.