Intervention studies

(RCT)

·       Considered the gold standard design to evaluate an intervention

·       Controlled (must be a relevant control condition for comparison)

Randomised (participants must be randomly assigned to treatment/control conditions)

          Participants complete both conditions one after the other

·       Can compare treatment to well-matched control (within-subjects)

Can be combined with RCT

·       When RCTs aren’t possible

·       Still comparing treatment and control but not randomly allocated

·       Appropriate when there are practical or ethical barriers to random allocation

·       Sort of experimental

Belief in an inactive treatment produces positive effects

Being studied can affect our behaviour, and believing we are receiving a treatment can affect outcomes

·       Can it work?

       Assessed in controlled lab/clinical setting

·       does it work?

      Does it produce sustained benefits over time?

      Assessed in realistic setting

if it does work, is it a cost-effective way to achieve those benefits?

Evaluate costs and benefits

Feasibility studies can be used before investing resources in full scale intervention studies, to assess whether the proposed intervention is feasible

Acceptability: how do the intended recipients of an intervention react to the proposed design and materials?

Practicality: can the proposed intervention be delivered within the time and resources available?

whether participants followed the intervention as intended