Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Coming to grips with seemingly conflicting results in programme evaluation: the devil’s in the detail
  1. Benjamin Daniels1,
  2. Sallie-Anne Pearson1,
  3. Nicholas A Buckley2,
  4. Claudia Bruno1,
  5. Andrea Schaffer1,
  6. Helga Zoega1,3
  1. 1 Medicine Policy Research Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2 Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Group, The University of Sydney Discipline of Pharmacology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3 Centre of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Benjamin Daniels, Medicine Policy Research Unit, Centre for Big Data Research in Health, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia; b.daniels{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

To the Editor:

We recently published findings from our study evaluating the impact of a national education initiative to improve the quality of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescribing in Australia in this journal.1 We write to respond to Blogg’s comment on our paper2 and address how Wu et al 3 seemingly generated conflicting conclusions in their evaluation of the same programme.

Main study findings and conclusions

Over the past decade, NPS MedicineWise has led two educational programmes to better align prescribing practice with evidence-based recommendations for PPIs and reduce the risk of PPI-related harm. The first intervention occurred in April 2009, the second between April 2015 and April 2016. Both programmes disseminated information to Australian general practitioners (GPs) about reviewing the need for long-term PPI treatment and considering ‘step-down’ treatment approaches.4 The Wu et al paper evaluated the impact of both interventions and Bruno et al only evaluated the …

View Full Text


  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles