Cited by 582Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Realist randomised controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions

Bonell, Chris, Fletcher, Adam, Morton, Matthew, Lorenc, Theo, Moore, Laurence·2012·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

Randomized trials of complex public health interventions generally aim to identify what works, accrediting specific intervention 'products' as effective. This approach often fails to give sufficient consideration to how intervention components interact with each other and with local context. 'Realists' argue that trials misunderstand the scientific method, offer only a 'successionist' approach to causation, which brackets out the complexity of social causation, and fail to ask which interventions work, for whom and under what circumstances. We counter-argue that trials are useful in evaluating social interventions because randomized control groups actually take proper account of rather than bracket out the complexity of social causation. Nonetheless, realists are right to stress understanding of 'what works, for whom and under what circumstances' and to argue for the importance of theorizing and empirically examining underlying mechanisms. We propose that these aims can be (and sometimes already are) examined within randomized trials. Such 'realist' trials should aim to: examine the effects of intervention components separately and in combination, for example using multi-arm studies and factorial trials; explore mechanisms of change, for example analysing how pathway variables mediate intervention effects; use multiple trials across contexts to test how intervention effects vary with context; draw on complementary qualitative and quantitative data; and be oriented towards building and validating 'mid-level' program theories which would set out how interventions interact with context to produce outcomes. This last suggestion resonates with recent suggestions that, in delivering truly 'complex' interventions, fidelity is important not so much in terms of precise activities but, rather, key intervention 'processes' and 'functions'. Realist trials would additionally determine the validity of program theory rather than only examining 'what works' to better inform policy and practice in the long-term.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.032

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Craig, P., C. Cooper, et al. (2012). Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , May 10. [Epub ahead of print, doi:10.1136/jech-2011-200375] · DOI
  2. Dishion, T. J., J. McCord, et al. (1999). When interventions harm. American Psychologist , 54(9), 755-764.
  3. Eccles, J. S. and J. Templeton (2001). Community Based Programs for Youth: Lessons Learned from General Development Research and From Experimental and Quasi-experimental evaluations. Urban Health Initiative Seminar Series . Cambridge, Harvard University.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bonell, C., Fletcher, A., Morton, M., Lorenc, T., & Moore, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Bonell, Chris
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
75
Issue
12
Pages
2299-2306
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100643950
Cited by
582
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 22
FWCI
52.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007543/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
realist research, randomized controlled trials, social causation, mechanisms of change, program theory, multi-arm trials, factorial trial, context effects, intervention fidelity, theory validation
MeSH terms
Health Promotion, Humans, Public Health, Program Evaluation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review