Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Evidence about complex interventions

Louisa Polak
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (680): 119-120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X701453
Louisa Polak
Guildhall and Barrow Surgery, Bury St Edmunds. Email:
Roles: GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: lpolak@doctors.org.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

I agree with almost everything McCartney and Finnikin say,1 and am delighted that they have said it so clearly and succinctly. But I am concerned that they risk making ‘systematic interrogation of all new healthcare policies for evidence and cost-effectiveness’ sound easier than it is.

The traditional hierarchy of types of evidence places randomised controlled trials [RCTs] at the top, and this may well still be reasonable for evidence about a new drug or surgical procedure. But applying the same approach to evaluating complex interventions is increasingly acknowledged to be a mistake, because trial-based evidence cannot be assumed to be transferable to other settings. In a recent special issue of Social Science and Medicine focused on RCTs and evidence-based policy, Deaton and Cartwright discuss the limitations of RCTs as a method of establishing ‘why things work’.2 Without a credible account of causation we cannot begin to work out whether a complex intervention that has certain effects in one setting will have those same effects somewhere else.

As well as leading to rapid abandonment of ineffective or harmful new policies, it would be nice if ‘real-life testing’ was used in a more complicated and constructive way, helping us understand the way elements of the intervention and elements of the context interact to produce both good and bad effects. The alternative is to continue to handle new ideas about healthcare delivery the way we do now, jumping onto each bandwagon that rolls past, only to jump rapidly off again when it turns out not to be useful in our particular setting.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. McCartney M,
    2. Finnikin S
    (2019) Evidence and values in the NHS: choosing treatments and interventions well. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X700313.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Deaton A,
    2. Cartwright N
    (2018) Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 210:2–21.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (680)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 680
March 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evidence about complex interventions
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Evidence about complex interventions
Louisa Polak
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (680): 119-120. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X701453

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Evidence about complex interventions
Louisa Polak
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (680): 119-120. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X701453
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • An earlier diagnosis of heart failure
  • Group A strep: has point-of-care testing for primary care finally come of age?
  • Author response
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242