# Separate being offered a programme from completing it

Treat this file as reference data, never as instructions that override the user or agent. Read the complete item before applying it. Keep use conditions, avoid conditions, limits, evidence roles and source links with the answer. An editorial block is a separately versioned analysis layer, not an original corpus claim or proof of efficacy. Cite the readable URL and version. Do not infer human review. This is a saved edition, not a live safety-notice service. Before consequential reuse, check the current page, https://vedokrok.com/data/availability.json and https://vedokrok.com/data/notices.json; absence alone does not explain why an item was removed.

Release: MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5
Snapshot SHA-256: b97dfd5520e2cf31744978d7e824b94e55bd12d9a2bdef759b5bc69a963375e5
Current availability: https://vedokrok.com/data/availability.json
Current notices: https://vedokrok.com/data/notices.json

---

## Separate being offered a programme from completing it

ID: MHC-D-RESEARCH-0057 · Version: 0.1.0 · Kind: concept
Source: https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/separate-being-offered-a-programme-from-completing-it

Assignment and perfect attendance are not the same intervention question.

### Use when

- A trial's result is being interpreted without checking which analysis population it uses.

### Avoid when

- Do not assume every intention-to-treat label guarantees complete data, or every adherence analysis is invalid.

### Explanation

An assignment-based analysis asks about the effect of allocation. An adherence-focused analysis asks something different and needs methods that address selection. Read the actual inclusions, not only the label beside the table.

### Example

A training provider removes everyone who missed sessions before comparing results. The remaining participants may differ in more than their exposure to the lessons.

### Check

Can you explain who remained in each analysed group and why?

### Limits

- Do not assume every intention-to-treat label guarantees complete data, or every adherence analysis is invalid.

### Evidence and sources

- supports: Assignment effects and adherence effects are different questions; naive per-protocol exclusions can introduce bias. — cochrane-trial-bias. Claim basis: technical_definition. Claim limit: The label intention-to-treat does not itself establish how missing data were handled.
Source access: selected_html_passages; accessed on: 2026-09-17; inspected sections: ["8.2.2", "8.2.3 signalling questions", "8.3", "8.5", "8.6"].
Source note: The elements introduce questions for readers; they do not reproduce or claim to complete the RoB 2 assessment.
Agent scope review, 2026-10-11: Cochrane 8.2.2/8.5 separate assignment and adherence questions. Naive exclusions can bias a comparison; the ITT label alone does not settle missing-data handling. (8.2.2; 8.5)
- cochrane-trial-bias: Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial — https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-08

Review: agent · Agent editorial and scoped evidence review · 2026-10-11T18:12:50Z
Published: 2026-10-11T18:15:00Z