Application of Randomized Controlled Trial in Evidence-Based Policymaking

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 Master of Cognitive Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Master of General Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Shahid Beheshti, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD student of Cognitive Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Every day, various policies are adopted and implemented to improve conditions and achieve goals; however, there is often little solid evidence regarding their effectiveness. In response to this issue, the approach of evidence-based policymaking—particularly through the establishment of behavioral insights teams—is expanding, where policymakers assess sufficient evidence on the effectiveness of policies before implementation and make decisions accordingly. One of the rigorous methods for this evaluation is Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). This study, conducted through a narrative review method, examines the capacity of RCTs. along with providing practical guidance for implementation, demonstrates that adhering to three key features—using large samples, considering a control group, and applying random assignment—enables causal inference through this method. Proper application and compliance with the requirements of this method can lead to benefits such as cost savings and greater policy impact, which is why RCTs have become the gold standard in this field.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexander, D., & Letwin, O. (2013). What Works: evidence centres for social policy. London: Cabinet Office.
  2. Allcott H. (2011), “Social Norms and Energy Conservation”, Journal of Public Economics, (95), 1082-1095.
  3. Ames, P., & Wilson, J. (2016). Unleashing the potential of randomised controlled trials in Australian governments: Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
  4. Behavioural Insights Team. (2012). Applying behavioural insights to reduce fraud, error and debt. Cabinet Office, London, 185, 186.
  5. Behavioural Insights Team. (2017). The Behavioural Insights Team update report 2016–17. Behavioural Insights Team. https://www.bi.team/publications/the-behavioural-insights-team-update-report-2016-17/
  6. Buck, S., & McGee, J. (2015). Why government needs more randomized controlled trials: Refuting the myths. Houston, TX: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
  7. Carroll, J., Lyons, S., & Denny, E. (2014). Reducing household electricity demand through smart metering: The role of improved information about energy saving. Energy Economics, 45, 234–243.
  8. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
  9. Haby, M., & Sieber, S. (2021). Evidence, policy, impact: WHO guide for evidence-informed decision-making. In Evidence, policy, impact: WHO guide for evidence-informed decision-making (pp. 92-92).‏
  10. Hallsworth, M., & Kirkman, E. (2020). Behavioral insights. MIT Press.‏
  11. Halpern, D. (2015). What works? The rise of experimental government. In Inside the nudge unit: How small changes can make a big difference. Random House.
  12. Hansen, P. G. (2019). Tools and ethics for applied behavioural insights: the BASIC toolkit. Organisation for Economic Cooporation and Development, OECD.
  13. Haynes, L., Goldacre, B., & Torgerson, D. (2012). Test, learn, adapt: developing public policy with randomised controlled trials. Cabinet Office-Behavioural Insights Team.
  14. Haynes, L. C., Green, D. P., Gallagher, R., John, P., & Torgerson, D. J. (2013). Collection of delinquent fines: An adaptive randomized trial to assess the effectiveness of alternative text messages. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(4), 718-730.‏
  15. Houde, S., Todd, A., Sudarshan, A., Flora, J. A., & Armel, K. C. (2013). Real-time Feedback and Electricity Consumption: A Field Experiment Assessing the Potential for Savings and Persistence. The Energy Journal, 34(1), 87–102. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41969212
  16. P. (2020): Improving Causal Claims in Public Policy through Randomized Designs in the Field, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice.
  17. Kettle, S., & Persian, R. (2022). Target, explore, solution, trial, scale: An introduction to running simple behavioural insights projects. BIT Handbook.‏
  18. MacMillan, H. L., Wathen, C. N., Barlow, J., Fergusson, D. M., Leventhal, J. M., & Taussig, H. N. (2009). Interventions to prevent child maltreatment and associated impairment. The lancet, 373(9659), 250-266.‏
  19. Pettersson, J. (2014). Randomized controlled trials: strengths, weaknesses and policy relevance.
  20. (2015). Legislating evidence-based policymaking: A look at state laws that support data-driven decision-making. Issue Brief, 862-872. Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/03/legislationresultsfirstbriefmarch2015.pdf
  21. Purdon, S., Stratford, N., Taylor, R., Natarajan, L., Bell, S., & Wittenburg, D. (2006). Impacts of the job retention and rehabilitation pilot.‏
  22. Renewable Energy World. (2010, March 5). President Obama speaks at headquarters of smart grid firm Opower. Renewable Energy World.https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/power-grid/smart-grids/president-obama-speaks-at-headquarters-of-smart-grid-firm-opower/
  23. Result for Emerica. (2019). 9 Ways to Make Federal Legislation Evidence-Based: 2019 What Works Guide for Congress. Retrieved from https://results4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/What-Works-Legislation-2019-9-Ways-to-Make-Legislation-More-Evidence-Based.pdf
  24. Stéphane, J. (2020). How can governments leverage policy evaluation to improve evidence informed policy making?.
  25. Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), S164–S187.
  26. White, H., Sabarwal, S., & de Hoop, T. (2014). Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): Methodological Briefs-Impact Evaluation No. 7 (No. innpub752).‏
  27. Wilson, T. D., & Juarez, L. P. (2015). Intuition is not evidence: Prescriptions for behavioral interventions from social psychology. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1(1), 13-20.
  28. Zakani, Z., Ebrahim Kani, M.H., Morovvati, F., Givzad, A., & Ghaderi, A. (2021). Using text-based nudges designed by behavioral science to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates. Iran Behavioral Insights Center [in persian]
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 11, Issue 3
September 2025
Pages 225-239

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics