Although widely accepted in medicine and health services research, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often viewed with hostility by social scientists, who cite a variety of reasons as to why this approach to evaluation cannot be used to research social interventions. This article discusses the three central themes in these debates, which are those of science, ethics, and feasibility. The article uses three recent U.K. trials of social interventions (day care for preschool children, social support for disadvantaged families, and peer-led sex education for young people) to consider issues relating to the use of random allocation for social intervention evaluation and to suggest some practical strategies for the successful implementation of “social” RCTs. The article argues that the criteria of science, ethics, and feasibility can and should apply to social intervention trials in just the same way as they do to clinical trials.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berge, Eivind, and Peter Sandercock. 2002. The nuts and bolts of doing a clinical trial. In Clinical trials, edited by Lelia Duley and Barbara Farrell, 72-80. London: BMJ Publishing .
2.
Boruch, Robert F. 1997. Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
3.
Burtless, Gary. 2002. Randomized field trials for policy evaluation: Why not in education? In Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research, edited by Frederick Mosteller and Robert Boruch, 179-197. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
4.
Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin .
5.
Campbell, Michelle, Ray Fitzpatrick, Andrew Haines, Ann L. Kinmonth, Peter Sandercock, David Spiegelhalter, and Peter Tyrer. 2000. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health . British Medical Journal321: 694-696 .
6.
Chalmers, Iain. 1997. Assembling comparison groups to assess the effects of health care . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine90: 379-386 .
7.
Cheetham, Juliet, Roger Fuller, G. McIvor, and A. Perth. 1992. Evaluating social work effectiveness. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press .
8.
Conner, Ross F. 1977. Selecting a control group . Evaluation Quarterly1: 195-244 .
9.
Cook, Thomas D., and Monique R. Payne. 2002. Objecting to using random assignment in educational research. In Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research, edited by Frederick Mosteller and Robert Boruch, 150-179. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
10.
DiCenso, Alba, Gordon Guyatt, A. Willan, and L. Griffith. 2002. Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials . British Medical Journal324: 1426-1430 .
11.
Edwards, Sarah J. L., R. J. Lilford, and J. Hewison. 1998. The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals . British Medical Journal317: 1209-1212 .
12.
Elliott, John. 2001. Making evidence-based practice educational . British Educational Research Journal27: 555-574 .
13.
Forrest, Simon, Vicki Strange, Ann Oakley, and the RIPPLE Study Team. 2002. A comparison of students' evaluations of a peer-delivered sex education programme and teacher-led provision . Sex Education2: 195-214 .
14.
Green, L. W., and M. W. Kreuter. 1991. Health promotion planning: An educational and environmental approach. Toronto, Canada: Mayfield Publishing Company .
15.
Gueron, Judith M. 2002. The politics of random assignment: Implementing studies and affecting policy. In Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research, edited by Frederick Mosteller and Robert Boruch, 15-49. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
16.
Harden, Angela, Ann Oakley, and Sandy Oliver. 2001. Peer-delivered health promotion by young people: A systematic review of different study designs . Health Education Journal60: 362-370 .
17.
Hodnett, Ellen, and Ian Roberts. 1996. Home-based special support for socially disadvantaged mothers (Cochrane review). In The Cochrane Library, iss. 1. Oxford: Update Software .
18.
Home Office. 2002. Drug prevention project, Research bidders' seminar, Question and answer session, 25 October. London: Home Office.
19.
Kleijnen, Jos, Peter Gotzsche, Regina A. Kunz, Andrew D. Oxman, and Iain Chalmers. 1997. So what's so special about randomisation? In Non-random reflections on health services research, edited by Alan Maynard and Iain Chalmers, 93-106. London: BMJ Publishing .
20.
Koops, Liedeke, and Richard I. Lindley. 2002. Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke: Consumer involvement in design of new randomised controlled trial . British Medical Journal325: 415-417 .
21.
Kunz, R., G. Vist, and A. D. Oxman. 2003. Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials (Cochrane methodological review). In The Cochrane Library, iss. 1. Oxford: Update Software .
22.
Lilford, Richard J., and J. Jackson. 1995. Equipoise and the ethics of randomisation . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine88: 552-559 .
23.
Morrison, Keith. 2001. Randomised controlled trials for evidence-based education: Some problems in judging “what works.” Evaluation and Research in Education15: 69-83 .
24.
Mosteller, Frederick, and Robert Boruch, eds. 2002. Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
25.
Oakley, Ann. 1992. Social support and motherhood: The natural history of a research project. Oxford: Basil Blackwell .
26.
Oakley, Ann. 1998. Living in two worlds . British Medical Journal316: 482-483 .
27.
Oakley, Ann. 2000. Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. Cambridge: Polity .
28.
Oakley, Ann. 2003. Research evidence, knowledge management and educational practice: Early lessons from a systematic approach . London Review of Education1: 21-33 .
29.
Oakley, Ann, and Deirdre Fullerton. 1996. The lamp-post of research: support or illumination? In Evaluating social interventions, edited by Ann Oakley and Helen Roberts, 4-38. Ilford, Essex, UK: Barnardos .
30.
Oakley, Ann, Deirdre Fullerton, Janet Holland, Sean Arnold, Merry France-Dawson, Peter Kelley, and Sheena McGrellis. 1995. Sexual health interventions for young people: A methodological review . British Medical Journal310: 158-162 .
31.
Oakley, Ann, Ian Roberts, Helen Turner, and Lyn Rajan. 2002. A feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial of daycare for preschool children. Rev. ed. Available from http:///eppi.ioe.ac.uk/ssru_docs/DaycareReview2002.pdf.
32.
Oakley, Ann, Meg Wiggins, Helen Turner, Lyn Rajan, and Maggie Barker. Forthcoming. Including cultural diverse samples in health research: A case study of an urban trial of social support. Ethnicity and Health.
33.
Oliver, A., and G. Peersman eds. 2001. Using research for effective health promotion. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press .
34.
Pawson, Ray, and Nick Tilley. 1997. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage .
35.
Petrosino, Anthony, Robert F. Boruch, Cath Rounding, Steve McDonald, and Iain Chalmers. 2000. Assembling a social, psychological, educational and criminological trials register (SPECTR) . Evaluation Research In Education14: 206-210 .
36.
Prescott, R. J., C. E. Counsell, W. J. Gillespie, A. M. Grant, I. T. Russell, S. Kiauka, I. E. Colthart, S. Ross, S. M. Shepherd, and D. Russell. 1999. Factors that limit the quality, number and progress of randomised controlled trials . Health Technology Assessment3.
37.
Ray, K. L., and Ellen D. Hodnett. 2001. Caregiver support for postpartum depression (Cochrane review). In The Cochrane Library, iss. 2. Oxford: Update Software .
38.
Rose, Hilary. 1994. Love, power and knowledge. Cambridge: Polity .
39.
Safe in the City. 2002. Research brief for process evaluation. London: Safe in the City .
40.
Sawtell, Mary, and Carol Jones. 2002. Time to listen: An account of the role of “support” health visitors . Community Practitioner75: 461-463 .
41.
Sheldon, Trevor, and Ann Oakley. 2002. Why we need randomised controlled trials. In Clinical trials, edited by L. Duley and B. Farrell, 13-24. London: BMJ Publishing .
42.
Speller, Viv, Alyson Learmonth, and D. Harrison. 1997. The search for evidence of effective health promotion . British Medical Journal315: 361-363 .
43.
Stephenson, Judith, and John Imrie. 1998. Why do we need randomised controlled trials to assess behavioural interventions? British Medical Journal316: 611-613 .
44.
Stephenson, Judith M., Ann Oakley, Susan Charleston, Amanda Brodala, Kevin Fenton, Ann Petruckevitch, and Anne Johnson. 1998. Behavioural intervention trials for HIV/STD prevention in schools: Are they feasible? Sexually Transmitted Infections74: 405-408 .
45.
Stephenson, Judith M., Ann Oakley, Anne M. Johnson, Simon Forrest, Vicki Strange, Susan Charleston, Stephanie Black, Andrew Copas, Ann Petruckevitch, and Abdel Babiker. Forthcoming. A school-based randomised controlled trial of peer-led sex education in England. Controlled Clinical Trials.
46.
Strange, Vicki, Simon Forrest, Ann Oakley, and the RIPPLE Study Team. 2001. A listening trial: “Qualitative” methods within experimental research. In Using research for effective health promotion, edited by Sandy Oliver and Greet Peersman, 138-153. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press .
47.
Strange, Vicki, Simon Forrest, Ann Oakley, and the RIPPLE Study Team. 2002a. Peer-led sex education: Characteristics of peer educators and their perceptions of the impact on them of participation in a peer education programme . Health Education Research17: 339-350 .
48.
Strange, Vicki, Simon Forrest, Ann Oakley, and the RIPPLE Study Team. 2002b. What influences peer-led sex education in the classroom? A view from the peer educators . Health Education Research17: 327-338 .
49.
Sure Start National Evaluation. 2000. National evaluation of the Sure Start Programme in England, specification of requirements.
50.
Sure Start Unit . 1998. Minutes of Sure Start Evaluation Group Meeting, 23 October.
51.
Torgerson, Carole J. 2001. The need for randomised controlled trials in educational research . British Journal of Educational Studies49: 316-328 .
52.
Toroyan, Tami, Ian Roberts, and Ann Oakley. 2000. Randomisation and resource allocation: A missed opportunity for evaluating health care and social interventions . Journal of Medical Ethics26: 319-322 .
53.
Toroyan, Tami, Ian Roberts, Ann Oakley, Gabrielle Laing, Miranda Mugford, Chris Frost, Ruben Mujica, and Elizabeth Afolabi. 2002. Effectiveness and economic evaluation of out-of-home daycare for disadvantaged families: A randomised controlled trial. Final Project Report for the Department of Health.
54.
White, S. J., and L. S. Freedman. 1978. Allocation of patients to treatment groups in a controlled clinical trial study . British Journal of Cancer37: 849-857 .
55.
Wiggins, Meg, Ann Oakley, Ian Roberts, Helen Turner, Lyn Rajan, Helen Austerberry, Ruben Mujica, and Miranda Mugford. 2002. The Social Support and Family Health Study: A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of two alternative forms of postnatal support for mothers living in disadvantaged inner city areas. Final Project Report for the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme.
56.
Young, K., D. Ashby, A. Boaz, and L. Grayson. 2002. Social science and the evidence-based policy movement . Social Policy and Society1: 215-224 .
57.
Zoritch, Bozena, Ian Roberts, and Ann Oakley. 1998. The health and welfare effects of day-care: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials . Social Science and Medicine47: 317-327 .
