Suchergebnisse

The use of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), most commonly a medical sciences research tool, is a hotly debated topic in Education. This book examines the controversial aspects of RCTs in Education and sets out the potential and pitfalls of the method. Drawing on their own extensive experience of running RCTs, the authors provide a thorough practical introduction to the use of randomised controlled trials in education. Using real data sets, chapters equip the reader with all of the key knowledge and skills required to design, run, analyse and report an RCT. Coverage includes: . Step-by-step guidance on analysing data . How to assess the reliability and validity of results . Advice on balancing the demands of various stakeholders Essential reading for postgraduate and more experienced researchers, as well as teachers and educationalists seeking to increase their knowledge and understanding of the use of such methods in education.

Background: The Scandinavian countries have a long history of implementing social interventions, but the interventions have not been examined using randomised controlled trials until relatively recently compared with countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the history of randomised controlled trials in Scandinavian compulsory schools (grades 0–10; pupil ages 6–15). Specifically, we investigate drivers and barriers for randomised controlled trials in educational research and the differences between the three Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods: To locate relevant trials, we performed a systematic search of four bibliographic databases and a search for grey literature. Results were combined with trials located through direct contact with researchers and government officials. A trial was included if one or more interventions were randomly assigned to groups of students and carried out in a school setting with the primary aim of improving the academic performance of children aged 6–15 in grades 0–10 in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. We included both conducted and ongoing trials. Publications that seemed relevant were screened based on full-text versions. Data extraction included information from the included studies on grade level, study period, sample size (N), project owner, funding source, and theme. In addition, we conducted two semi-structured interviews by phone or in person with central employees in funding agencies and ministries and 25 correspondences with researchers and policymakers. Findings and conclusion: RCTs in grades 0–10 were few in all of Scandinavia until about 2011, after which there was an increase in all three countries, although at different rates. The largest number of trials has been conducted in Denmark, and the increase is more marked in Denmark and Norway compared with Sweden. International trends towards more impact evaluations and results from international comparisons such as PISA have likely affected the development in all countries, but while many trials in Denmark and Norway are the result of policy initiatives, only one such example in Sweden was identified. We believe the lack of government initiatives to promote RCTs in Sweden is the most likely explanation for the differences across the Scandinavian countries. Funding and coordination from the government are often crucial for the implementation of RCTs and are likely more important in smaller countries such as the Scandinavian ones. Supporting institutions have now been established in all three countries, and we believe that the use of RCTs in Scandinavian educational research is likely to continue. ; publishedVersion

Background: The Scandinavian countries have a long history of implementing social interventions, but the interventions have not been examined using randomised controlled trials until relatively recently compared with countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the history of randomised controlled trials in Scandinavian compulsory schools (grades 0-10; pupil ages 6-15). Specifically, we investigate drivers and barriers for randomised controlled trials in educational research and the differences between the three Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods: To locate relevant trials, we performed a systematic search of four bibliographic databases and a search for grey literature. Results were combined with trials located through direct contact with researchers and government officials. A trial was included if one or more interventions were randomly assigned to groups of students and carried out in a school setting with the primary aim of improving the academic performance of children aged 6-15 in grades 0-10 in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. We included both conducted and ongoing trials. Publications that seemed relevant were screened based on full-text versions. Data extraction included information from the included studies on grade level, study period, sample size (N), project owner, funding source, and theme. In addition, we conducted two semi-structured interviews by phone or in person with central employees in funding agencies and ministries and 25 correspondences with researchers and policymakers. Findings and conclusion: RCTs in grades 0-10 were few in all of Scandinavia until about 2011, after which there was an increase in all three countries, although at different rates. The largest number of trials has been conducted in Denmark, and the increase is more marked in Denmark and Norway compared with Sweden. International trends towards more impact evaluations and results from international comparisons such as PISA have likely affected the development in all countries, but while many trials in Denmark and Norway are the result of policy initiatives, only one such example in Sweden was identified. We believe the lack of government initiatives to promote RCTs in Sweden is the most likely explanation for the differences across the Scandinavian countries. Funding and coordination from the government are often crucial for the implementation of RCTs and are likely more important in smaller countries such as the Scandinavian ones. Supporting institutions have now been established in all three countries, and we believe that the use of RCTs in Scandinavian educational research is likely to continue.

Background: The Scandinavian countries have a long history of implementing social interventions, but the interventions have not been examined using randomised controlled trials until relatively recently compared with countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the history of randomised controlled trials in Scandinavian compulsory schools (grades 0–10; pupil ages 6–15). Specifically, we investigate drivers and barriers for randomised controlled trials in educational research and the differences between the three Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods: To locate relevant trials, we performed a systematic search of four bibliographic databases and a search for grey literature. Results were combined with trials located through direct contact with researchers and government officials. A trial was included if one or more interventions were randomly assigned to groups of students and carried out in a school setting with the primary aim of improving the academic performance of children aged 6–15 in grades 0–10 in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. We included both conducted and ongoing trials. Publications that seemed relevant were screened based on full-text versions. Data extraction included information from the included studies on grade level, study period, sample size (N), project owner, funding source, and theme. In addition, we conducted two semi-structured interviews by phone or in person with central employees in funding agencies and ministries and 25 correspondences with researchers and policymakers. Findings and conclusion: RCTs in grades 0–10 were few in all of Scandinavia until about 2011, after which there was an increase in all three countries, although at different rates. The largest number of trials has been conducted in Denmark, and the increase is more marked in Denmark and Norway compared with Sweden. International trends towards more impact evaluations and results from international comparisons such as PISA have likely affected the development in all countries, but while many trials in Denmark and Norway are the result of policy initiatives, only one such example in Sweden was identified. We believe the lack of government initiatives to promote RCTs in Sweden is the most likely explanation for the differences across the Scandinavian countries. Funding and coordination from the government are often crucial for the implementation of RCTs and are likely more important in smaller countries such as the Scandinavian ones. Supporting institutions have now been established in all three countries, and we believe that the use of RCTs in Scandinavian educational research is likely to continue. ; publishedVersion

Background: The Scandinavian countries have a long history of implementing social interventions, but the interventions have not been examined using randomised controlled trials until relatively recently compared with countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the history of randomised controlled trials in Scandinavian compulsory schools (grades 0–10; pupil ages 6-15). Specifically, we investigate drivers and barriers for randomised controlled trials in educational research and the differences between the three Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods: To locate relevant trials, we performed a systematic search of four bibliographic databases and a search for grey literature. Results were combined with trials located through direct contact with researchers and government officials. A trial was included if one or more interventions were randomly assigned to groups of students and carried out in a school setting with the primary aim of improving the academic performance of children aged 6-15 in grades 0–10 in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. We included both conducted and ongoing trials. Publications that seemed relevant were screened based on full-text versions. Data extraction included information from the included studies on grade level, study period, sample size (N), project owner, funding source, and theme. In addition, we conducted two semi-structured interviews by phone or in person with central employees in funding agencies and ministries and 25 correspondences with researchers and policy makers. Findings and conclusion: RCTs in grades 0–10 were few in all of Scandinavia until about 2011, after which there was an increase in all three countries, although at different rates. The largest number of trials has been conducted in Denmark, and the increase is more marked in Denmark and Norway compared with Sweden. International trends towards more impact evaluations and results from international comparisons such as PISA have likely affected the development in all countries, but while many trials in Denmark and Norway are the result of policy initiatives, only one such example in Sweden was identified. We believe the lack of government initiatives to promote RCTs in Sweden is the most likely explanation for the differences across the Scandinavian countries. Funding and coordination from the government are often crucial for the implementation of RCTs and are likely more important in smaller countries such as the Scandinavian ones. Supporting institutions have now been established in all three countries, and we believe that the use of RCTs in Scandinavian educational research is likely to continue. ; Background: The Scandinavian countries have a long history of implementing social interventions, but the interventions have not been examined using randomised controlled trials until relatively recently compared with countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the history of randomised controlled trials in Scandinavian compulsory schools (grades 0–10; pupil ages 6-15). Specifically, we investigate drivers and barriers for randomised controlled trials in educational research and the differences between the three Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods: To locate relevant trials, we performed a systematic search of four bibliographic databases and a search for grey literature. Results were combined with trials located through direct contact with researchers and government officials. A trial was included if one or more interventions were randomly assigned to groups of students and carried out in a school setting with the primary aim of improving the academic performance of children aged 6-15 in grades 0–10 in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. We included both conducted and ongoing trials. Publications that seemed relevant were screened based on full-text versions. Data extraction included information from the included studies on grade level, study period, sample size (N), project owner, funding source, and theme. In addition, we conducted two semi-structured interviews by phone or in person with central employees in funding agencies and ministries and 25 correspondences with researchers and policy makers. Findings and conclusion: RCTs in grades 0–10 were few in all of Scandinavia until about 2011, after which there was an increase in all three countries, although at different rates. The largest number of trials has been conducted in Denmark, and the increase is more marked in Denmark and Norway compared with Sweden. International trends towards more impact evaluations and results from international comparisons such as PISA have likely affected the development in all countries, but while many trials in Denmark and Norway are the result of policy initiatives, only one such example in Sweden was identified. We believe the lack of government initiatives to promote RCTs in Sweden is the most likely explanation for the differences across the Scandinavian countries. Funding and coordination from the government are often crucial for the implementation of RCTs and are likely more important in smaller countries such as the Scandinavian ones. Supporting institutions have now been established in all three countries, and we believe that the use of RCTs in Scandinavian educational research is likely to continue.

Abstract
Research Question
Can caller satisfaction and trust in police be improved (or equalled), after police agree to send a police car to meet with a caller face-to-face, by the alternative of immediate transfer of the call to a police officer who speaks to the caller at length by telephone?

Data
A total of 1016 calls for police service to 999 or 101 assigned by call takers as falling into a "medium" priority category were checked for eligibility, including consent of the caller to speak immediately to a police officer by phone if possible. Eligible offence types excluded domestic abuse but included a variety of other matters. A majority (57.7%) of eligible cases were about threats made by neighbours, workplace colleagues or others known to the caller. A total of 450 cases were selected as eligible for the test sample out of a total of assessed as potentially eligible.

Methods
Eligible cases were randomly assigned to either a control group (N = 225) of business as usual (BAU) attempts to provide a face-to-face meeting with a police officer, or the experimental group (N = 225) receiving immediate telephone transfer to a police officer who talked with the caller for over an hour as the initial police response. Analyses were done by intention-to-treat. While 99.75% (N = 249/250) of the experimental cases were treated as assigned, only about half of the 225 control cases actually received a face-to-face meeting with a police officer. All 450 assigned callers who gave consent to enter the experiment were contacted for a satisfaction survey at least 14 days following random assignment of the cases, from which the completion rate was 72.5% (almost identical in the two treatment groups).

Findings
Eligible, consenting callers reported substantially higher levels of being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the experimental police response by telephone (92.6%) than with the BAU efforts to arrange a face-to-face meeting between a police officer and the caller (68.9%). Trust and confidence in Kent police declined among 21% of callers receiving BAU service, but only 9% of callers given immediate telephone service. The median time from the initial call to a conversation between police and caller was under 1 min for the experimental treatment vs. 2721 min for the 80% of BAU control treatments in which any conversation between an officer and a caller occurred within 96 h after the call.

Conclusion
This first experiment in a research collaboration on FAST (Finding Alternative and Speedier Tactics) policing has opened the door to further tests of immediate response by remote communications (Rothwell, et al. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 6, 1–24, 2022). For the kinds of cases included in this experiment, there is a clear preference by callers for the speedier service by a simple phone call over much slower attempts to provide a face-to-face meeting. If broadly adopted across many other high-volume, low-harm categories of requests for police service, fast policing by phone, video or silent live-chat online could improve public approval of policing while allowing more time for police to prevent more serious crimes.

Introduction The use of capsule endoscopy has become an approved method in small bowel diagnostics, but the same level of integration is not seen in large bowel diagnostics. We will use colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) as a filter test in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. We aim to investigate the clinical performance, population acceptability, and economic implications of the procedure in a large-scale clinical trial. Methods and analysis We will randomly allocate 124 214 Danish citizens eligible for participation in the national CRC screening programme within the Region of Southern Denmark to either an intervention group or a control group. Prior to submitting a FIT, citizens randomised to the intervention group will be informed about their opportunity to undergo CCE, instead of colonoscopy, if the FIT is positive. Suspected cancers; >3 adenomas 10 mm in size or >4 adenomas regardless of size, detected during CCE will generate an invitation to colonoscopy as per regular screening guidelines, whereas citizens with suspected low risk polyps will re-enter the biennial screening programme. Citizens with no CCE findings will be excluded from screening for 8 years. In the control group, citizens will follow standard screening procedures. Ethics and dissemination All participants must consent prior to capsule ingestion. All collected data will be handled and stored in accordance with current data protection legislation. Approvals from the regional ethics committee (ref. S-20190100) and the Danish data protection agency have been obtained (ref. 19/29858). Trial registration details The study has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under: NCT04049357.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of a free book gifting programme, called "Bookstart+", in improving family reading outcomes. Design/methodology/approach – Bookstart+ consists of a pack of books and reading materials provided to families at their two-year-old child's statutory health visit. The pack is accompanied by a short priming demonstration, delivered by the health visitor, on shared reading. The evaluation took the form of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 460 families from the client lists of 115 health visitors. Findings – The study found evidence of: a positive significant effect on parents' attitudes to reading and books (Cohen's d=+0.192, p=0.034); no significant effect on parental attitudes to their child reading (d=+0.085, p=0.279); and a negative effect, approaching significance, on public library usage (d=-0.160, p=0.055). Research limitations/implications – The attrition rate was high, with only 43.9 per cent of the target families completing all of the research. However, this level of attrition did not lead to any significant differences between the control and intervention groups on their pre-test measures. Practical implications – The study provides recommendations for free book gifting service provision in relation to pack contents and delivery. Originality/value – This paper contributes to the limited international RCT evidence on free book gifting programmes.

Abstract
In a one-year randomised controlled trial involving thousands of university students, we provide real-time private feedback on relative performance in a semester-long online assignment. Within this set-up, our experimental design cleanly identifies the behavioural response to rank incentives (i.e., incentives stemming from an inherent preference for high rank). We find that rank incentives boost performance in the related course assignment, but also the average course exams grade by 0.21 SDs. These beneficial effects remain sizeable across all quantiles and extend beyond the intervention period. Furthermore, rank feedback stimulates social learning, i.e., rank incentives make students engage more in peer interactions.

<b><i>Background/Aims:</i></b> Heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) can improve the condition of heroin addicts still using street heroin after a methadone treatment. In Belgium, a new trial compared the efficacy of a HAT to existing methadone maintenance treatment. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> In this randomised controlled trial, HAT was limited to 12 months. Participants were assessed every 3 months. They were responders if they showed improvement on the level of street heroin use, health or criminal involvement. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 74 participants were randomised in the trial. The experimental group (n = 36) counted 30% of responders more than the control group (n = 38) at each assessment point (p < 0.05), except at 12 months where the difference (11%) was no longer significant (p = 0.35). Still, after 12 months, participants in the experimental group reported significantly greater improvements (p < 0.05) than the control group on the level of street heroin use and on the level of physical and mental health. Both groups reported significantly less criminal acts after 12 months (p < 0.001), but with no significant difference between the groups. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> This trial confirms the short-term efficacy of HAT for severe heroin addicts, who already failed methadone treatment.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of different menu labelling formats on healthy food choices in a real restaurant setting. This cross-sectional, randomised and controlled parallel-group trial was conducted in Brazil in 2013. 313 university students were randomly assigned to one of three parallel groups with different menu labelling formats. Of these, data from 233 students were analysed. The others did not attend and were excluded. Intervention group 1 (n=88) received information in the form of a traffic light system plus guideline daily amounts, while intervention group 2 (n=74) was presented with an ingredients list plus highlighted symbols. The control group (n=71) received a menu with no menu labelling. Data were collected on one weekday in a restaurant setting. Trial outcomes were assessed by healthy food choices. Healthy food choices were significantly higher among students who received the menu showing an ingredients list plus highlighted symbols. The same menu labelling format positively affected healthy food choices in women, not overweight participants and who often ate out more than twice a week. A menu labelling format that presented an ingredients list and highlighted symbols was positively associated with healthy food choices among university students in Brazil. This type of labelling could be adopted in future legislation on menu labelling in Brazil and around the world.

Acknowledgements The authors thank Paul Manson (HSRU Information Scientist) for help with the database searches, Professor Graeme MacLennan for advice on categorising adaptive design trials, and Professor Marion Campbell for commenting on a draft version of the manuscript. Funding statement RL held an NHS Research Scotland Fellowship during the delivery of this project. The Health Services Research Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences (University of Aberdeen), is core-funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. The funders had no involvement in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, reporting or the decision to publish. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF