<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shelton, James D</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Response to “A False Dichotomy: RCTs and Their Contributions to Evidence-Based Public Health”</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Global Health: Science and Practice</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015-03-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">141-143</style></pages><doi><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00045</style></doi><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can and do make valuable contributions, they also have severe limitations, including in answering the basic question of “Does it work?” and, even more so, in steering how to proceed with complex public health programming at scale. They deserve no exalted position in the pantheon of methodologies for evidence-based public health. See related articles by Hatt and Shelton.I appreciate the thoughtful response by Hatt et al.1 to my editorial on evidence-based public health2 and am happy we agree on several points: There is some definite value to randomized trials. Because public health operates in complex program environments, it is generally necessary to lay out a valid “theory of change” or causal pathway to understand and evaluate the intended and actual program effects. Mixed-method approaches are essential to understand what is going on in such complex arenas. “Does it work” is always affected by context. The paradigm Hatt et al. put forward asserts that one strength of randomized trials is to answer definitively, “Does it work?” But for the kinds of complex programs public health must muster, there is generally no absolute answer to that question or to its companion question, “How well does it work?” Rather, the answer much depends on how and in what situation “it” is done. That is often true even for fairly consistent biologic phenomena, …</style></abstract></record></records></xml>