Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor Paula Whitty
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Background There is an ethical imperative to evaluate service and policy initiatives, such as those highlighted in the recent National Service Framework, just as there is to evaluate individual treatments. Aims To outline the best methods available for evaluating the delivery and organisation of mental health services. Method We present a narrative methodological overview, using salient examples from mental health services research. Results Cluster randomised studies involve the random allocation of groups of clinicians, clinical teams or hospitals rather than individual patients, and produce the least biased evaluation of mental health policy, organisation or service delivery, Where randomisation is impossible or impractical (often when services or policies are already implemented), then quasi-experimental designs can be used. Such designs have both strengths and many potential flaws. Conclusions The gold standard remains the randomised trial, but with due consideration to the unit of randomisation. Use of quasi-experimental designs can be justified in certain circumstances but should be attempted and interpreted with caution. Declaration of interest S.G. is supported by the Medical Research Council Health Services Research Fellowship Programme.
Author(s): Gilbody S, Whitty P
Publication type: Review
Publication status: Published
Journal: British Journal of Psychiatry
Year: 2002
Volume: 180
Issue: 1
Pages: 13-18
ISSN (print): 0007-1250
ISSN (electronic): 1472-1465
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.180.1.13
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.180.1.13
