Policymakers, administrators, and other decision makers need high quality evidence about the effects – both positive and negative – of policy and programming options to make well-informed decisions about how to target resources aimed at advancing health and racial equity.
Many social programs and policies may have larger benefits for some people but smaller benefits for other people or may even benefit one group, while harming another.
While a variety of study designs can be used to estimate the population health impacts of social interventions, randomized control trials (RCTs) are uniquely well-suited to assess causal relationships between an intervention and outcomes.
Since Evidence for Action (E4A) launched in 2015, with more than 2000 Letters of Intent and over 100 Full Proposals reviewed, we have seen time and again that methodological issues– the approaches used to evaluate an intervention – are one of the most important barriers to providing compelling, act
Food security refers to the ability to access enough food for every member of one’s household at all times. National surveillance data show that overall, food security had been improving steadily since 2011, following the nation’s recovery from the Great Recession.
As discussed in our previous blog post, there are a variety of methods that can be used to identify causal impacts of policies, programs, or practices. One approach is instrument-based study designs.
