The application of Cartwright's concept of capacities to complex interventions in psychiatry

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 18 (5):1013-1018 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Cartwright and Munro argued that extrapolation of findings from randomized controlled trials to other settings can be difficult because information about the underlying causal structure and subgroups is often not available. They advocated the use of ‘capacities’ – that is fixed causal contributions – in predicting effects of interventions. In psychiatry, it is often not possible to determine what the fixed causal contributions are and one can only establish ‘approximate capacities’. However, using ‘approximate capacities’ does imply a different way of evaluating health services, especially combined interventions. In health service research, if different studies, randomized controlled trials or other designs, have given different outcomes, the best way to investigate the effectiveness of a particular way of service organization is not to conduct more randomized controlled trials. It is preferable to study the effects of certain elements of the complex intervention, which have been tested before in other settings, that is investigating ‘approximate capacities’. One should check whether the separate elements do form a part of the complex intervention in practice and whether they have the same effect as in other studies and if not, why not. This enhances knowledge about the underlying causal structure and increases the possibility of extrapolation of the findings.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,774

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Causality in complex interventions.Dean Rickles - 2009 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12 (1):77-90.
The limitations of randomized controlled trials in predicting effectiveness.Nancy Cartwright & Eileen Munro - 2010 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2):260-266.
What Theories Are Tested in Clinical Trials?Spencer Phillips Hey - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1318-1329.
What are randomised controlled trials good for?Nancy Cartwright - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 147 (1):59 - 70.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-24

Downloads
72 (#79,783)

6 months
6 (#1,472,471)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

Are rcts the gold standard?Nancy Cartwright - 2007 - Biosocieties 1 (1):11-20.
Why There’s No Cause to Randomize.John Worrall - 2007 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 58 (3):451-488.
The limitations of randomized controlled trials in predicting effectiveness.Nancy Cartwright & Eileen Munro - 2010 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2):260-266.

View all 8 references / Add more references