Conceptualising Natural and Quasi Experiments in Public Health
Frank de Vocht, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Cheryl McQuire, Kate, Tilling, Matthew Hickman, Peter Craig

TL;DR
Natural and quasi experiments in public health are valuable for evaluating interventions that cannot be randomized, and aligning their design with the Target Trial Framework enhances clarity and causal inference.
Contribution
This paper conceptualizes natural experiments within public health, aligning them with the Target Trial Framework to improve their design, reporting, and causal inference.
Findings
Natural experiments combine features of experiments and observational studies.
Their validity depends on the plausibility of 'as-if' randomization.
Using the Target Trial Framework clarifies causal claims.
Abstract
Background: Natural or quasi experiments are appealing for public health research because they enable the evaluation of events or interventions that are difficult or impossible to manipulate experimentally, such as many policy and health system reforms. However, there remains ambiguity in the literature about their definition and how they differ from randomised controlled experiments and from other observational designs. Methods: We conceptualise natural experiments in in the context of public health evaluations, align the study design to the Target Trial Framework, and provide recommendation for improvement of their design and reporting. Results: Natural experiment studies combine features of experiments and non-experiments. They differ from RCTs in that exposure allocation is not controlled by researchers while they differ from other observational designs in that they evaluate the…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
