Randomized Control Trial (RCT)

Recently Added

CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.

Search
for studies on
this topic using
keywords
and filters

Displaying 161 - 170 of 527

Using mindfulness to reduce occupational stress and burnout in music teachers: A randomized controlled trial (Varona, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of a mindfulness training program for music educators on occupational stress & burnout. This study was a randomized controlled trial…
Early college continued success: Longer-term impact of early college high schools (Song & Zeiser, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The objective of the study was to examine the impact of attending Early Colleges (ECs) on enrollment in postsecondary institutions and the likelihood of receiving a postsecondary degree. …
Effect of a workplace wellness program on employee health and economic outcomes: A randomized clinical trial (Song & Baicker, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a workplace wellness program on employees’ tenure, absenteeism, cholesterol, hypertension, and obesity. This study was a…
Effects of Flipgrid for training on job satisfaction in adjunct clinical nursing faculty in a baccalaureate nursing program (Quimba, 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a virtual training platform, Flipgrid, on job satisfaction among adjunct clinical nursing faculty. The study was a randomized…
The effect of a teamwork intervention on staff perception of teamwork and patient care on a medical surgical unit (Marguet & Ogaz 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a teamwork intervention on participants’ job satisfaction, perceived level of teamwork at work, and satisfaction with the perceived level of…
Optimizing screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) training for nurses and social workers: Testing the added effect of online patient simulation (O’Brien et al. 2019)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of an online patient simulation (OPS) for screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) on nursing and social work college students’ attitudes,…
Can sector strategies promote longer-term effects? Three-year impacts from the WorkAdvance demonstration (Schaberg 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the WorkAdvance sectoral training program on year three employment and earnings outcomes. This profile focuses on the evaluation at the Towards…
Can sector strategies promote longer-term effects? Three-year impacts from the WorkAdvance demonstration (Schaberg 2017)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the WorkAdvance sectoral training program on year three employment and earnings outcomes. This profile focuses on the evaluation at the Per…
GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties: California’s greater avenues for independence program (Riccio & Friedlander 1992)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the outcomes for…
GAIN: Program strategies, participation patterns, and first-year impacts in six counties: California’s greater avenues for independence program (Riccio & Friedlander 1992)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study's objective was to examine the impact of the Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program on employment, earnings, and public benefits receipt. This profile focuses on the outcomes for…

CLEAR Icon Key

Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.

High Causal Evidence

Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence

Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence

Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis

Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis

Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis

Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable

The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed

The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None

The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable

The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable

Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence

The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence

The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence

The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence

The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.