An overview on field experiments in health in developing countries
https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2021.i4.s125
Abstract
Medical science recognizes that patients do not always respond to treatment in a way physicians expect; moreover, different people respond to treatment in different and sometimes unpredictable ways. These differences can be attributed to observable patients’ characteristics, such as age and gender, but also unobservable characteristics can influence the results, such as lifestyle or an unreported health condition. To overcome this problem, during the twentieth century, medical researchers and statisticians began extensively using randomized controlled trial (RCT) methods to assess the effect of the treatment and to separate this effect from other patients’ characteristics that could affect the results. During the last decades, social scientists, willing to go beyond correlational analysis to provide insights on causation, have adopted a similar approach. This paper gives a short overview of RCT in development economics with a special attention to programs related to health in developing countries.
References
1. Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2012). Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. Public Affairs.
2. Banerjee, A. V., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kothari, D. (2010). Improving immunisation coverage in rural India: Clustered randomised controlled evaluation of immunisation campaigns with and without incentives. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 340, c2220. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2220
3. Björkman, M., & Svensson, J. (2009). Power to the people: Evidence from a randomized field experiment on community-based monitoring in Uganda. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(2), 735–769.
4. Gertler, P. J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. B., & Vermeersch, C. M. J. (2016). Impact Evaluation in Practice, Second Edition. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25030
5. Glewwe, P., Kremer, M., & Moulin, S. (1998). Textbooks and test scores: Evidence from a prospective evaluation in kenya. In Natural Field Experiments (No. 00255; Natural Field Experiments). The Field Experiments Website. https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/natura/00255.html
6. J-PAL. (n.d.). Policy Insights. The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). Retrieved January 11, 2022, from https://www.povertyactionlab.org/policy-insights
7. Kremer, M., Leino, J., Miguel, E., & Zwane, A. P. (2011). Spring cleaning: Rural water impacts, valuation, and property rights institutions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(1), 145–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjq010
8. Leigh, A. (2018). Randomistas: How radical researchers are changing our world. Yale University Press.
9. Meldrum, M. L. (2000). A brief history of the randomized controlled trial: From oranges and lemons to the gold standard. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America, 14(4), 745–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-8588(05)70309-9
10. Miguel, E., & Kremer, M. (2004). Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities. Econometrica, 72(1), 159–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00481.x
11. Ogden, T. N. (Ed.). (2017). Experimental Conversations: Perspectives on Randomized Trials in Development Economics. MIT Press.
Review
For citations:
Yépez J. An overview on field experiments in health in developing countries. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2021;3(4). https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2021.i4.s125
Views:
476
Email this article 