Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

There is now widespread acknowledgement of the absence of a sound evidence base underpinning many of the decisions made in primary care. Randomised controlled trials represent the methodology of choicefor determining efficacy and effectiveness of interventions, yet researchers working in primary care have been reluctant to use intervention studies, favouring observational study designs. Unfamiliarity with the different trial designs now available, and the relative advantages and disadvantages conferred by each, may be one factor contributing to this paradox. In this paper, we consider the principal trial designs available to primary care researchers, discussing the contexts in which a particular design may prove most useful. This information will, we hope, also prove useful to primary care clinicians attempting to interpret trial findings.

Type

Journal article

Journal

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners

Publication Date

09/2002

Volume

52

Pages

746 - 751

Addresses

Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, Imperial College School of Science, Technology and Medicine, London. aziz.sheikh@ic.ac.uk

Keywords

Humans, Cluster Analysis, Cross-Over Studies, Health Services Research, Patient Satisfaction, Primary Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Bias, Outcome Assessment, Health Care