Cited by 84Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesEvaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth disparities and outcomes

Changing the environment to improve population health: a framework for considering exposure in natural experimental studies

Open access
Humphreys, David K, Panter, Jenna, Sahlqvist, Shannon, Goodman, Anna, Ogilvie, David·2016·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Abstract

There is renewed optimism regarding the use of natural experimental studies to generate evidence as to the effectiveness of population health interventions. Natural experimental studies capitalise on environmental and policy events that alter exposure to certain social, economic or environmental factors that influence health. Natural experimental studies can be useful for examining the impact of changes to ‘upstream’ determinants, which may not be amenable to controlled experiments. However, while natural experiments provide opportunities to generate evidence, they often present certain conceptual and methodological obstacles. Population health interventions that alter the physical or social environment are usually administered broadly across populations and communities. The breadth of these interventions means that variation in exposure, uptake and impact may be complex. Yet many evaluations of natural experiments focus narrowly on identifying suitable ‘exposed’ and ‘unexposed’ populations for comparison. In this paper, we discuss conceptual and analytical issues relating to defining and measuring exposure to interventions in this context, including how recent advances in technology may enable researchers to better understand the nature of population exposure to changes in the built environment. We argue that when it is unclear whether populations are exposed to an intervention, it may be advantageous to supplement traditional impact assessments with observational approaches that investigate differing levels of exposure. We suggest that an improved understanding of changes in exposure will assist the investigation of the impact of complex natural experiments in population health.

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 · 10.1136/jech-2015-206381

Cites

44 of 44 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: 1

  1. [27]Pawson R, Tilly N Realistic evaluation. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1997.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Humphreys, D. K., Panter, J., Sahlqvist, S., Goodman, A., & Ogilvie, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Humphreys, David K
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-04-07
Volume
70
Issue
9
Pages
941-946
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
OpenAlex
W2327636044
Cited by
84
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 1
FWCI
12.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (MC_UU_12015/6, 087636/Z/08/Z)
  • United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (RES-590-28-0002, MC_UU_12015/6)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (09/3001/06, PDF-2012-05-157, MC_UU_12015/6, PDF-2010-03-15)
  • British Heart Foundation (MC_UU_12015/6)
  • Centre for Diet and Activity Research (RES-590-28-0002, MC_UU_12015/6)
  • Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015, MC_UU_12015/6, MR/K023187/1)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/G00059X/1)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007462/1, RES-590-28-0002, MC_UU_12015/6)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
Keywords
natural experiment, population health interventions, exposure measurement, built environment, upstream determinants of health, environmental change, intervention impact evaluation, exposure heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Population Health, Health Promotion, Humans, Research Design, Social Environment

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