Cargando…

Criteria for evaluating programme theory diagrams in quality improvement initiatives: a structured method for appraisal

BACKGROUND: Despite criticisms that many quality improvement (QI) initiatives fail due to incomplete programme theory, there is no defined way to evaluate how programme theory has been articulated. The objective of this research was to develop, and assess the usability and reliability of scoring cri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Issen, Laurel, Woodcock, Thomas, McNicholas, Christopher, Lennox, Laura, Reed, Julie E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6094797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29635294
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy063
_version_ 1783347866059669504
author Issen, Laurel
Woodcock, Thomas
McNicholas, Christopher
Lennox, Laura
Reed, Julie E
author_facet Issen, Laurel
Woodcock, Thomas
McNicholas, Christopher
Lennox, Laura
Reed, Julie E
author_sort Issen, Laurel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite criticisms that many quality improvement (QI) initiatives fail due to incomplete programme theory, there is no defined way to evaluate how programme theory has been articulated. The objective of this research was to develop, and assess the usability and reliability of scoring criteria to evaluate programme theory diagrams. METHODS: Criteria development was informed by published literature and QI experts. Inter-rater reliability was tested between two evaluators. About 63 programme theory diagrams (42 driver diagrams and 21 action–effect diagrams) were reviewed to establish whether the criteria could support comparative analysis of different approaches to constructing diagrams. RESULTS: Components of the scoring criteria include: assessment of overall aim, logical overview, clarity of components, cause–effect relationships, evidence and measurement. Independent reviewers had 78% inter-rater reliability. Scoring enabled direct comparison of different approaches to developing programme theory; action–effect diagrams were found to have had a statistically significant but moderate improvement in programme theory quality over driver diagrams; no significant differences were observed based on the setting in which driver diagrams were developed. CONCLUSIONS: The scoring criteria summarise the necessary components of programme theory that are thought to contribute to successful QI projects. The viability of the scoring criteria for practical application was demonstrated. Future uses include assessment of individual programme theory diagrams and comparison of different approaches (e.g. methodological, teaching or other QI support) to produce programme theory. The criteria can be used as a tool to guide the production of better programme theory diagrams, and also highlights where additional support for QI teams could be needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6094797
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60947972018-08-22 Criteria for evaluating programme theory diagrams in quality improvement initiatives: a structured method for appraisal Issen, Laurel Woodcock, Thomas McNicholas, Christopher Lennox, Laura Reed, Julie E Int J Qual Health Care Methods Article BACKGROUND: Despite criticisms that many quality improvement (QI) initiatives fail due to incomplete programme theory, there is no defined way to evaluate how programme theory has been articulated. The objective of this research was to develop, and assess the usability and reliability of scoring criteria to evaluate programme theory diagrams. METHODS: Criteria development was informed by published literature and QI experts. Inter-rater reliability was tested between two evaluators. About 63 programme theory diagrams (42 driver diagrams and 21 action–effect diagrams) were reviewed to establish whether the criteria could support comparative analysis of different approaches to constructing diagrams. RESULTS: Components of the scoring criteria include: assessment of overall aim, logical overview, clarity of components, cause–effect relationships, evidence and measurement. Independent reviewers had 78% inter-rater reliability. Scoring enabled direct comparison of different approaches to developing programme theory; action–effect diagrams were found to have had a statistically significant but moderate improvement in programme theory quality over driver diagrams; no significant differences were observed based on the setting in which driver diagrams were developed. CONCLUSIONS: The scoring criteria summarise the necessary components of programme theory that are thought to contribute to successful QI projects. The viability of the scoring criteria for practical application was demonstrated. Future uses include assessment of individual programme theory diagrams and comparison of different approaches (e.g. methodological, teaching or other QI support) to produce programme theory. The criteria can be used as a tool to guide the production of better programme theory diagrams, and also highlights where additional support for QI teams could be needed. Oxford University Press 2018-08 2018-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6094797/ /pubmed/29635294 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy063 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Methods Article
Issen, Laurel
Woodcock, Thomas
McNicholas, Christopher
Lennox, Laura
Reed, Julie E
Criteria for evaluating programme theory diagrams in quality improvement initiatives: a structured method for appraisal
title Criteria for evaluating programme theory diagrams in quality improvement initiatives: a structured method for appraisal
title_full Criteria for evaluating programme theory diagrams in quality improvement initiatives: a structured method for appraisal
title_fullStr Criteria for evaluating programme theory diagrams in quality improvement initiatives: a structured method for appraisal
title_full_unstemmed Criteria for evaluating programme theory diagrams in quality improvement initiatives: a structured method for appraisal
title_short Criteria for evaluating programme theory diagrams in quality improvement initiatives: a structured method for appraisal
title_sort criteria for evaluating programme theory diagrams in quality improvement initiatives: a structured method for appraisal
topic Methods Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6094797/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29635294
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy063
work_keys_str_mv AT issenlaurel criteriaforevaluatingprogrammetheorydiagramsinqualityimprovementinitiativesastructuredmethodforappraisal
AT woodcockthomas criteriaforevaluatingprogrammetheorydiagramsinqualityimprovementinitiativesastructuredmethodforappraisal
AT mcnicholaschristopher criteriaforevaluatingprogrammetheorydiagramsinqualityimprovementinitiativesastructuredmethodforappraisal
AT lennoxlaura criteriaforevaluatingprogrammetheorydiagramsinqualityimprovementinitiativesastructuredmethodforappraisal
AT reedjuliee criteriaforevaluatingprogrammetheorydiagramsinqualityimprovementinitiativesastructuredmethodforappraisal