Nonrandomized Impact Evaluation Studies: Errors and Tips
Abstract
Editorial Nonrandomized Impact Evaluation Studies: Errors and Tips SAGE Publications, Inc. 201010.1177/2150131910374718 © The Author(s) The Author(s) James E.Rohrer PhD, MS, BS Rochester, Minnesota, jim.rohrer1955@gmail.com Corresponding Author: James E. Rohrer, 512 8th Street SW, Rochester MN 55902 Email: jim.rohrer1955@gmail.com Medicine and public health are evidence-based fields, yet many of our programs do not receive close scrutiny as to whether they are meeting their objectives.1 This observa- tion applies to both new programs and older programs. To be sure, our accountants can and will tell us when billings fall below expenses and when charging market-level fees is insufficient to meet payroll. Whether our programs are achieving clinical or community health goals may not be assessed with equal precision, however. Innovation abounds in primary care and community health practice. New programs are launched annually in many communities. Local foundations support nonprofit groups heroically struggling with intransigent social problems. Primary care clinics occasionally experiment with practice changes in an effort to modify lifestyle, increase appropriate use of prevention services, or improve control over chronic diseases. Appropriate met- rics for measuring the success of these innovations are readily available, yet staff members are often left wonder- ing at the end of the