Cargando…

Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models

BACKGROUND: Logic models are commonly used in evaluations to represent the causal processes through which interventions produce outcomes, yet significant debate is currently taking place over whether they can describe complex interventions which adapt to context. This paper assesses the logic models...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mills, Thomas, Lawton, Rebecca, Sheard, Laura
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6419426/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30871474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0701-4
_version_ 1783403942986645504
author Mills, Thomas
Lawton, Rebecca
Sheard, Laura
author_facet Mills, Thomas
Lawton, Rebecca
Sheard, Laura
author_sort Mills, Thomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Logic models are commonly used in evaluations to represent the causal processes through which interventions produce outcomes, yet significant debate is currently taking place over whether they can describe complex interventions which adapt to context. This paper assesses the logic models used in healthcare research from a complexity perspective. A typology of existing logic models is proposed, as well as a formal methodology for deriving more flexible and dynamic logic models. ANALYSIS: Various logic model types were tested as part of an evaluation of a complex Patient Experience Toolkit (PET) intervention, developed and implemented through action research across six hospital wards/departments in the English NHS. Three dominant types of logic model were identified, each with certain strengths but ultimately unable to accurately capture the dynamics of PET. Hence, a fourth logic model type was developed to express how success hinges on the adaption of PET to its delivery settings. Aspects of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) model were incorporated into a traditional logic model structure to create a dynamic “type 4” logic model that can accommodate complex interventions taking on a different form in different settings. CONCLUSION: Logic models can be used to model complex interventions that adapt to context but more flexible and dynamic models are required. An implication of this is that how logic models are used in healthcare research may have to change. Using logic models to forge consensus among stakeholders and/or provide precise guidance across different settings will be inappropriate in the case of complex interventions that adapt to context. Instead, logic models for complex interventions may be targeted at facilitators to enable them to prospectively assess the settings they will be working in and to develop context-sensitive facilitation strategies. Researchers should be clear as to why they are using a logic model and experiment with different models to ensure they have the correct type. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0701-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6419426
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64194262019-03-27 Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models Mills, Thomas Lawton, Rebecca Sheard, Laura BMC Med Res Methodol Debate BACKGROUND: Logic models are commonly used in evaluations to represent the causal processes through which interventions produce outcomes, yet significant debate is currently taking place over whether they can describe complex interventions which adapt to context. This paper assesses the logic models used in healthcare research from a complexity perspective. A typology of existing logic models is proposed, as well as a formal methodology for deriving more flexible and dynamic logic models. ANALYSIS: Various logic model types were tested as part of an evaluation of a complex Patient Experience Toolkit (PET) intervention, developed and implemented through action research across six hospital wards/departments in the English NHS. Three dominant types of logic model were identified, each with certain strengths but ultimately unable to accurately capture the dynamics of PET. Hence, a fourth logic model type was developed to express how success hinges on the adaption of PET to its delivery settings. Aspects of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) model were incorporated into a traditional logic model structure to create a dynamic “type 4” logic model that can accommodate complex interventions taking on a different form in different settings. CONCLUSION: Logic models can be used to model complex interventions that adapt to context but more flexible and dynamic models are required. An implication of this is that how logic models are used in healthcare research may have to change. Using logic models to forge consensus among stakeholders and/or provide precise guidance across different settings will be inappropriate in the case of complex interventions that adapt to context. Instead, logic models for complex interventions may be targeted at facilitators to enable them to prospectively assess the settings they will be working in and to develop context-sensitive facilitation strategies. Researchers should be clear as to why they are using a logic model and experiment with different models to ensure they have the correct type. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0701-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-03-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6419426/ /pubmed/30871474 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0701-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Debate
Mills, Thomas
Lawton, Rebecca
Sheard, Laura
Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models
title Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models
title_full Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models
title_fullStr Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models
title_full_unstemmed Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models
title_short Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models
title_sort advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6419426/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30871474
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0701-4
work_keys_str_mv AT millsthomas advancingcomplexityscienceinhealthcareresearchthelogicoflogicmodels
AT lawtonrebecca advancingcomplexityscienceinhealthcareresearchthelogicoflogicmodels
AT sheardlaura advancingcomplexityscienceinhealthcareresearchthelogicoflogicmodels