- Judith Stephenson (jstephen@gum.ucl.ac.uk), senior lecturer in epidemiology,
- John Imrie, research fellow
- Department of Sexually Transmitted Disease, University College London Medical School, London WC1 6AU
- Correspondence to: Dr Stephenson
- Accepted 21 July 1997
The value of the randomised controlled trial still generates debate.1 Although some of the earliest examples of these trials can be found in behavioural and psychosocial research, this is not an area that has adopted readily the randomised controlled trial to assess interventions.2 Two recent developments have intensified debate about the role of randomised controlled trials—the urgent need to find effective behavioural interventions against HIV 3 4 and the advance of evidence based medicine, which is moving the randomised controlled trial beyond clinical trials into areas such as health promotion. This article considers the merits and limitations of randomised controlled trials in the behavioural area compared with clinical medicine, and asks how these trials can be applied successfully to assess behavioural interventions.
Merits and limitations
The merits and limitations of randomised controlled trials in general have been widely discussed 5 6; only key points are repeated here. In clinical medicine, the randomised controlled trial is considered the best way of measuring the efficacy of interventions because of its ability to minimise bias and avoid false conclusions. Random assignment of individuals to different treatment groups is the best way of achieving a balance between groups for the known and unknown factors that influence outcome. This may seem to run counter to the traditional medical model of the doctor deciding which treatment is best for each patient, but it is considered ethical only when there is genuine uncertainty about which treatment to offer. By the same token, failure to tackle genuine uncertainty about treatments through randomised controlled trials can be considered unethical because it allows ineffective or harmful treatments to continue unchecked.
Limitations
Aside from ethical issues, the limitations of randomised controlled trials are relative, and shared to some degree by other study designs. These include cost, feasibility, and relevance to the real …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: How much of a social media profile can doctors have?
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Diagnosis and management of Raynaud’s phenomenon
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Is it unethical for doctors to encourage healthy adults to donate a kidney to a stranger? No
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Report predicts 20 million AIDS orphans in Africa by 2010
Published 13 February 2012
Re: On the impossibility of being expert
Published 13 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (8 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
How much of a social media profile can doctors have? (7 responses)
Published 23 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012