Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Randomized Experiments

Randomized Experiments

The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs are crucial methodologies used in evaluating and comparing the bioavailability of different drug products. These designs are categorized into various types: completely randomized, randomized block, repeated measures, cross and carry-over, and Latin square designs.Completely randomized designs involve randomly allocating treatments to all subjects participating in the experiment. This allocation is achieved by assigning unique random numbers to subjects...

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...

Study Designs in Epidemiology

Study Designs in Epidemiology

Epidemiological study designs are fundamental tools for investigating the distribution, determinants, and control of health conditions in populations. They help researchers understand the relationships between exposures and outcomes, and they broadly fall into two categories: "observational" and "experimental" studies.
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies.

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...

Blinding

Blinding

Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Global Performance of Human Papillomavirus Typing, Screening, and Evaluation As Assessed Using Proficiency Panels Traceable to International Standards: A Retrospective Analysis, 2008-2024.

Journal of medical virology·2026

Same author

Design principles and core components of cervical screening registries in the human papillomavirus era: a narrative review and global framework.

International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society·2026

Same author

Repeat invitations and participation in cervical screening: A population-based cohort study.

Journal of medical screening·2026

Same author

HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening during wartime: a pilot implementation study from a conflict-affected region of Ukraine.

BMJ global health·2026

Same author

International Collaborative Study on Human Papillomavirus Analytical Thresholds for Sensitivity and Specificity in Cervical Screening.

Journal of medical virology·2026

Same author

Prediction models for high-grade cervical lesions or worse using machine learning.

EClinicalMedicine·2026

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 23, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

Randomised health services studies.

Matti Hakama¹, Nea Malila, Joakim Dillner

¹Mass Screening Registry, Finnish Cancer Registry, Helsinki, Finland.

International Journal of Cancer

|March 31, 2012

Summary

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are standard, but implementing health care changes needs formal designs. We propose Randomised Health Services studies (RHS) for evaluating routine care improvements.

Area of Science:

Health Services Research
Clinical Epidemiology
Healthcare Policy and Management

Background:

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for research validity but are not typically used for evaluating routine healthcare implementations.
Implementing new healthcare methods and policies often lacks formal study designs, hindering effective evaluation and improvement.
Experimental designs can be applied to healthcare implementation, including clinical actions, preventive strategies, and broader care processes.

Purpose of the Study:

To introduce and define the terminology Randomised Health Services studies (RHS).
To differentiate RHS from RCTs, highlighting their distinct foundations and practicalities.
To advocate for a formalized framework for RHS to enhance evidence generation in routine medical practice.

More Related Videos

E-Patient Counseling Trial (E-PACO): Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy

E-Patient Counseling Trial (E-PACO): Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy

Published on: August 1, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 23, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index

Published on: January 8, 2020

E-Patient Counseling Trial (E-PACO): Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy

E-Patient Counseling Trial (E-PACO): Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy

Published on: August 1, 2019

Main Methods:

Proposing the use of randomized designs within routine healthcare settings for observational studies.
Defining RHS as studies using randomization at individual, population, or process levels within existing healthcare structures.
Emphasizing that RHS should align with the regulative actions, funding, and ethical frameworks of routine healthcare.

Main Results:

RHS offers a method to formally evaluate healthcare implementations in real-world settings.
RHS can be adapted to various randomization levels (individual, population, process).
RHS operates within the existing healthcare system's framework, unlike traditional RCTs.

Conclusions:

Formalizing Randomised Health Services studies (RHS) can improve the evaluation of routine healthcare.
A distinct registration and framework for RHS would promote more valid effectiveness research.
RHS provides a pathway to gain better, more direct evidence on actual medical practice.