Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 12, 2020 at 21:26 comment added adejames2000 @JamesStanley That is right, naming the study design help to put a lot of things in better perspective.
Nov 12, 2020 at 21:23 comment added adejames2000 @DianaPetitti, that seems to explain it. Thank you.
Nov 11, 2020 at 22:16 comment added James Stanley @adejames2000 -- that's all good, I appreciate my comment didn't address your direct question (hence a comment rather than an answer). My comment point was that most of the utility in naming a study design is in what this tells us as researchers/readers about the pros/cons of that design and how to deal with them (i.e. the design name is shorthand for what to consider when drawing conclusions based on that evidence)
Nov 11, 2020 at 16:36 comment added Diana Petitti @adejames2000 This paper discusses quasi-experimental designs in the evaluation of interventions for infectious disease. academic.oup.com/cid/article/38/11/1586/285372
Nov 11, 2020 at 15:42 comment added adejames2000 @JamesStanley, I appreciate your contribution. I do agree that from a statistical point of view, there are concerns for confounding and bias, however, I am not focusing of the statistical ramifications at this moment. I am more focused on the design, which I have seen in a few study set-ups particularly healthcare but haven't been able to pinpoint its appropriate study design name.
Nov 11, 2020 at 2:01 comment added James Stanley This is a useful framing: one advantage of "naming" study designs is to think about their common sources of bias. Here the gold standard design would be a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for the two treatments; having a before-after design that is separated on treatment opens up questions of confounding and influence from broader contextual factors (e.g. admission procedures for in-patient vs. community treatment)
Nov 11, 2020 at 1:36 history answered user215517 CC BY-SA 4.0