ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Use of quasi-experimental studies to evaluate causal effects of public health interventions in Portugal: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Genetic Counseling Modalities on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Premarital Screening Intentions for Thalassemia Prevention: A Multi-Site Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Trial
- Impact of a free medication policy on blood pressure among older patients with hypertension: an interrupted time series analysis.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Use of quasi-experimental studies to evaluate causal effects of public health interventions in Portugal: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuasi-experimental designs are a valid option to assess causal effects of public health interventions when randomized studies are unfeasible, but not widely used in Portugal. We identified and reviewed characteristics of studies employing quasi-experimental designs to evaluate causal effects of public health interventions in Portugal.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and CINHAL were searched, alongside grey literature, reference mining and contact of authors of eligible studies. We extracted information on the intervention assessed, study design, outcomes assessed, statistical analysis and reporting guidelines.
resultsWe identified 1143 studies; 25 were eligible. Studies assessed interventions in various areas, mainly healthcare services (28.0%), drugs/tobacco consumption policy (20.0%), and COVID-19 related restrictions (20.0%). Studies employed interrupted time series (56.0%) and difference-in-differences designs (44.0%). Analyses utilised regression-based models, namely linear (48.0%), negative binominal (20.0%) and logistic (12.0%). Studies analysed 53 outcomes, with two outcomes per study on average. No reporting guidelines were mentioned.
conclusionsThere is a limited number of studies using quasi-experimental designs to estimate the causal effects of public health interventions in Portugal, mainly interrupted time series and difference-in-differences. Training in this area might promote the adequate use and dissemination of quasi-experimental studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.