Abstract
This chapter focuses on the evaluation of the outcomes of interventions in health services research. The study designs for outcomes evaluation can be globally classified as experimental or observational. Experimental designs (i.e. randomised trials) are best for the assessment of the effectiveness of interventions, that is, the ‘pure effects’ as compared to a relevant comparator. In addition, a wide range of observational evaluation designs are available that may use components of experimental designs. Observational designs can be used for the examination of change and goal attainment. Outcomes evaluation in health services research typically includes samples of participants in the range from several dozens to hundreds or thousands. In many cases, a variety of outcome measures across different domains are included, covering aspects of healthcare delivery and/or health outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Baier, R. R., Jutkowitz, E., Mitchell, S. L., et al. (2019). Readiness assessment for pragmatic trials (RAPT): a model to assess the readiness of an intervention for testing in a pragmatic trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 156.
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Rand McNally.
Hamad, R., Nguyen, T. T., Bhattacharya, J., et al. (2019). Educational attainment and cardiovascular disease in the United States: A quasi-experimental instrumental variables analysis. PLoS medicine, 16(6), e1002834.
Hiemstra, B., Keus, F., Wetterslev, et al. (2019). DEBATE-statistical analysis plans for observational studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 233.
Higgins J.P.T., Savović J., Page M.J. et al. (2019). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, et al. (Eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
Huntink, E., Heijmans, N., Wensing, M., et al. (2013). Effectiveness of a tailored intervention to improve cardiovascular risk management in primary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials, 14(1), 433.
Schmidt, K., Worrack, S., Von Korff, M., et al. (2016). Effect of primary care management intervention on mental-health-related quality of life among survivors of sepsis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 315(24), 2703–2711.
Schünemann, H., Brozek, J., Guyatt, G., et al. (eds.) (2013). GRADE Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach version of October 2013. The GRADE Working Group. http://gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/central_prod/_design/client/handbook/handbook.html
Schwartz, D. & Lellouch, J. (2009). Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 62(5), 499–505.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wensing, M., Grimshaw, J. (2023). Outcomes Evaluation in Health Services Research. In: Wensing, M., Ullrich, C. (eds) Foundations of Health Services Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29998-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29998-8_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-29997-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-29998-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)