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 521 - 527 of 527

Supported employment for middle-aged and older people with schizophrenia. (Twamley et al. 2008)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study examined the impact of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) on competitive employment for older people with schizophrenia The study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and used…
Cash transfer programme, productive activities and labour supply: Evidence from a randomised experiment in Kenya (Asfaw et al. 2014)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to assess the impact of a monthly cash transfer program on household food consumption, resources, and work, including child labor. The study used survey data from a…
Do education and health conditions matter in a large cash transfer? Evidence from a Honduran experiment (Benedetti et al. 2016)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a conditional cash transfer on school enrollment and child labor. The study was a randomized controlled trial conducted in in low-income villages…
Effect of the Mchinji Social Cash Transfer Pilot Scheme on children's schooling, work and health outcomes: A multilevel study using experimental data (Luseno 2012)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: High Causal Evidence
The objective of the study was to examine the impact of the Mchinji Social Cash Transfer Pilot Scheme (SCTPS) on child labor and school outcomes. The study was a randomized controlled trial…
Three essays on investments in children's human capital (Bustelo 2011)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Moderate Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of a Nicaraguan conditional cash transfer program, Red de Proteccion Social (RPS), on child work participation and school enrollment. The study was a…
Education and child labor: Experimental evidence from a Nicaraguan conditional cash transfer program (Maluccio 2009)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Red de Proteccion Social (RPS) cash transfer program on school attendance and enrollment and on child labor for children aged 7-13 in rural…
Cash transfers, conditions, school enrollment, and child work: Evidence from a randomized experiment in Ecuador (Schady & Araujo 2006)
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
Causal Evidence Rating: Low Causal Evidence
The purpose of the study was to assess the impact of the Bono de Desarrollo Humano (BDH) program on child labor and school enrollment for children 6-17 years old. The study used a randomized…

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.