REVIEW ARTICLE |
Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Correspondence: Simon Gilbody, Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9LT, UK. Tel: 0113 233 1899; fax: 0113 243 3719; e-mail: s.m.gilbody{at}leeds.ac.uk
Declaration of interest S.G. is supported by the Medical Research Council Health Services Research Fellowship Programme.
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.
Related articles in BJP:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. Lloyd-Evans, M. Slade, D. Jagielska, and S. Johnson Residential alternatives to acute psychiatric hospital admission: systematic review The British Journal of Psychiatry, August 1, 2009; 195(2): 109 - 117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. R. Hollin Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: Does only randomization glister? JCriminology and Criminal Justice, February 1, 2008; 8(1): 89 - 106. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
U. M. Junghan, M. Leese, S. Priebe, and M. Slade Staff and patient perspectives on unmet need and therapeutic alliance in community mental health services The British Journal of Psychiatry, December 1, 2007; 191(6): 543 - 547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. SLADE, P. McCRONE, E. KUIPERS, M. LEESE, S. CAHILL, A. PARABIAGHI, S. PRIEBE, and G. THORNICROFT Use of standardised outcome measures in adult mental health services: Randomised controlled trial The British Journal of Psychiatry, October 1, 2006; 189(4): 330 - 336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Bower and S. Gilbody Stepped care in psychological therapies: access, effectiveness and efficiency: Narrative literature review The British Journal of Psychiatry, January 1, 2005; 186(1): 11 - 17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. A. NEAL, M. KIERNAN, D. HILL, F. McMANUS, and M. A. TURNER Management of mental illness by the British Army The British Journal of Psychiatry, April 1, 2003; 182(4): 337 - 341. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Hotopf The pragmatic randomised controlled trial Adv. Psychiatr. Treat., September 1, 2002; 8(5): 326 - 333. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||