Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance

By P. Craig, C. Cooper, D. Gunnell, S. Haw, K. Lawson, Sally J Macintyre, D. Ogilvie, M. Petticrew, B. Reeves, M. Sutton and 1 more. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2012

863 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Health Professions, Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dd74a7282db4a4c6eae82206ae7547cc6d71dc00

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Joshua J. Lawler

In General Health Professions

1. H. Frumkin
2. M. Suhrcke

In Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

1. Peter H. Kahn, Jr.
2. B. Cochran
3. Spencer A. Wood
4. Kathleen L Wolf
5. P. Levin
6. Joshua J. Lawler
7. H. Frumkin
8. Pooja S. Tandon

Citations in the corpus

• Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda (2017, background): “The more thorny challenge is conceptual: natural experiments are highly susceptible to bias, that is to say, to the tendency for exposure to vary across a study population by factors that are also associated with outcomes (Craig et al. 2012; Rutter 2007).”
• The Economic Costs of Type 2 Diabetes: A Global Systematic Review (2015, background): “The increasing richness of information provided in recent data sets could be used to this effect, also taking into account other quasiexperimental econometric methods [118].”