The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Natural experiment methodology for research: a review of how different methods can support real-world research
Open accessAbstract
In particular research domains, the randomized control trial (RCT) is considered to be the only means for obtaining reliable estimates of the true impact of an intervention. However, an RCT design would often not be considered ethical, politically feasible, or appropriate for evaluating the impact of many policy, programme, or structural changes common in public health research. As such, researchers must use alternative yet robust research methods for determining the impact of such interventions. The evaluation of natural experiments (i.e. an intervention not controlled or manipulated by researchers), using various experimental and non-experimental design options can provide an alternative to the RCT. The following review highlights (a) the importance of evaluating natural experiments; (b) design considerations associated with evaluating natural experiments; (c) methods for reducing bias in natural experimental studies; and (d) the potential benefits of targeted systems to enable natural experiments in emerging priority domains moving forward.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
(2002) · Cited by 13,211
(1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,252
Multilevel analysis : an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. (1999) · Cited by 6,832
Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis
MacKinnon, D. P. (2012) · doi:10.4324/9780203809556 · Cited by 5,618
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches
อุ่นอารมย์เลิศ, ร. ด. ธ. (2016) · Silpakorn Educational Research Journal · Cited by 4,515
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Handoll, H. H. (2004) · The British Journal of Hand Therapy · doi:10.1177/175899830400900201 · Cited by 1,513
Evidence-Based Public Health: A Fundamental Concept for Public Health Practice
Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Maylahn, C. M. (2009) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100134 · Cited by 1,124
Craig, P., Cooper, C., Gunnell, D., Haw, S., Lawson, K., Macintyre, S., Ogilvie, D., Petticrew, M., Reeves, B., Sutton, M., et al. (2012) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech-2011-200375 · Cited by 912
MacCoun, R. (2003) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.1002/pam.10129 · Cited by 828
Cited by
Slaunwhite, A., Min, J. E., Palis, H., Urbanoski, K., Pauly, B., Barker, B., Crabtree, A., Bach, P., Krebs, E., Dale, L., et al. (2024) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076336 · Cited by 100
Verma, M., Gupta, M., Jeet, G., Bosma, H., & Koster, A. (2026) · Current Obesity Reports · doi:10.1007/s13679-026-00741-4
Metadata
- Authors
- Leatherdale, S. T.
- Venue
- International Journal of Social Research Methodology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-07-02
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-35
- ISSN
- 1364-5579 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5300
- OpenAlex
- W2809826847
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 18.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Natural experiment methodology for research: a review of how different methods can support real-world research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13645579.2018.1488449
- The paper
- Leatherdale, S. T. (2019). Natural experiment methodology for research: a review of how different methods can support real-world research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1488449
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
