WHAT WORKS? — LLMpedia

WHAT WORKS?
Name	WHAT WORKS?
Type	Conceptual framework
Focus	Evidence-based practices and policy
Introduced	20th century
Related	Evidence-based medicine; Randomized controlled trial; Meta-analysis

Contents

WHAT WORKS?

WHAT WORKS? is an inquiry-driven framework for assessing which interventions, programs, and policies achieve intended outcomes. It synthesizes methods from Randomized controlled trial, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Cochrane Collaboration standards, and implementation science pioneered in institutions such as National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The framework emphasizes empirical testing, replication, and translation across contexts including public health, social policy, criminal justice, and international development.

Overview

WHAT WORKS? centers on determining causality and generalizability through triangulation of evidence drawing from randomized designs, quasi-experimental methods, observational cohorts, and qualitative process evaluation. Its intellectual roots trace to the rise of Evidence-based medicine in the 1990s, the establishment of bodies like the Cochrane Collaboration and the influence of methodological advocates such as Archie Cochrane, David Sackett, and institutions including Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Practitioners often adopt grading schemes inspired by organizations like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the Campbell Collaboration.

The methodological core of WHAT WORKS? includes randomized evaluation exemplified by the RAND Corporation and large-scale trials funded by agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the Gates Foundation; meta-analytic aggregation following traditions from Gene Glass and John Tukey; and systematic reviews modeled after the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA guidelines. It incorporates causal inference techniques developed by scholars like Donald Rubin and Judea Pearl, and econometric approaches associated with Angus Deaton and Joshua Angrist. Mixed-methods designs integrate ethnographic fieldwork from practitioners linked to University of Chicago sociology programs and program evaluation practice at RAND and World Bank operations. Evidence hierarchies and grading systems are often adapted from GRADE and sector-specific guidance from agencies such as the United Nations Development Programme and United States Agency for International Development.

WHAT WORKS? is applied across diverse arenas. In public health, trials of interventions such as vaccination campaigns evaluated by the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention illustrate the model. In education, randomized classroom interventions associated with researchers at Brookings Institution, Harvard Kennedy School, and Stanford University inform curriculum policy. Criminal justice reforms are tested in studies conducted by University of Cambridge and University of Oxford researchers and implemented in pilot programs by entities like the Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom) and the United States Department of Justice. International development projects assessed by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation use WHAT WORKS? frameworks to evaluate cash transfers, microfinance, and agricultural innovations. Health services research from Kaiser Permanente and Mayo Clinic and environmental interventions considered by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change analyses also draw on this approach.

Critics highlight limits when randomized designs conflict with ethical constraints raised by bodies such as Nuremberg Code and debates in bioethics influenced by Belmont Report principles. Scholars like Amartya Sen and Daron Acemoglu argue that context, institutions, and power dynamics studied at London School of Economics and Princeton University complicate simple transferability. Methodologists caution about publication bias identified by Rosenthal effect discussions and replication crises explored by teams at Center for Open Science and scholars including John Ioannidis. Policymakers in forums such as United Nations General Assembly and commentators from The Lancet and Nature warn that overreliance on narrow metrics can marginalize qualitative insights central to work at International Rescue Committee and Doctors Without Borders.

Translating WHAT WORKS? into policy requires coordination among legislative bodies like the United States Congress, executive agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, and multilateral organizations including the United Nations and European Commission. Implementation science from National Academy of Medicine reports, pilot scaling strategies by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and adaptive management approaches practiced by the World Bank Group inform scaling decisions. Institutional incentives, funding flows governed by entities like the Wellcome Trust and regulatory environments set by agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration shape adoption. Evidence translation platforms modeled on What Works Clearinghouse and repositories maintained by the Cochrane Collaboration and Campbell Collaboration facilitate access for practitioners and legislators.

Notable examples include randomized deworming trials in Kenya and Uganda linked to Princeton University research, cash-transfer evaluations in Mexico under the PROGRESA program studied by economists at Stanford University and MIT, and education randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in India with involvement from J-PAL affiliates at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Public health successes evaluated under WHAT WORKS? include tobacco-control policies assessed by World Health Organization frameworks and vaccination campaigns coordinated by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Criminal justice pilot programs in Scotland and New York City informed by randomized and quasi-experimental studies have been analyzed by researchers at University of Pennsylvania and University College London.

Category:Evidence-based policy