Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:38:15.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Community-based intervention trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2011

Betty R. Kirkwood  and
Richard H. Morrow
Betty R. Kirkwood
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, WHO, Geneva
Richard H. Morrow
Affiliation:
Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, WHO, Geneva
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The randomized controlled trial has become the standard basis for the evaluation of new therapeutic agents and procedures (and for measuring the protective efficacy of new vaccines or for assessing the value of screening procedures). Patients, who have met the criteria for eligibility and have agreed to participate in the trial, are allocated on a random basis to the alternative therapies under consideration. In order to avoid possible bias in the handling or assessment of these groups, a double blind procedure is preferred; the therapy given is not known to those who administer it, to those who assess the course of the disease thereafter, nor to the patients themselves. There is an extensive literature on clinical trials covering their logic and history, modern developments and the many complex, often controversial, issues that such trials have provoked. Not all issues have been fully resolved but by and large the principle, the practice and the ethical concerns of clinical trials are worked out and firmly established.

Type
Monitoring interventions and assessment of their effects
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 21 , supplement S10: Health Interventions and Mortality Change in Developing Countries , 1989 , pp. 79 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blum, D. & Feachkm, R. G. (1983) Measuring the impact of water supply and sanitation investments on diarrhoeal diseases: problems of methodology. Int. J. Epidemiol. 12, 357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briscoe, J., Feachem, R. G. & Rahaman, M. M. (1986) Evaluating Health Impact: Water Supply, Sanitation, and Hygiene Education. International Development Research Center, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Clemens, J. D. & Stanton, B. F. (1987) An educational intervention for altering water-sanitation behaviours to reduce childhood diarrhoea in urban Bangladesh. I. Application of the casecontrol method for development of an intervention. Am. J. Epidemiol. 125, 284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gambia Hepatitis Study Group (1987) The Gambia Hepatitis Intervention Study. Cancer Res. 47, 5782.Google Scholar
Smith, P. G. (1987) Evaluating interventions against tropical diseases. Int. J. Epidemiol. 16, 159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanton, B. F. & Clemens, J. D. (1987) An educational intervention for altering water-sanitation behaviours to reduce childhood diarrhoea in urban Bangladesh. II. A randomised trial to assess the impact of the intervention on hygienic behaviours and rates of diarrhea. Am. J. Epidemiol. 125, 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar