Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research article

Can programme theory be used as a 'translational tool’ to optimise health service delivery in a national early years’ initiative in Scotland: a case study

Authors: Jennifer Eaves, Wendy Gnich

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Theory-based evaluation (TBE) approaches are heralded as supporting formative evaluation by facilitating increased use of evaluative findings to guide programme improvement. It is essential that learning from programme implementation is better used to improve delivery and to inform other initiatives, if interventions are to be as effective as they have the potential to be. Nonetheless, few studies describe formative feedback methods, or report direct instrumental use of findings resulting from TBE. This paper uses the case of Scotland’s, National Health Service, early years’, oral health improvement initiative (Childsmile) to describe the use of TBE as a framework for providing feedback on delivery to programme staff and to assess its impact on programmatic action.

Methods

In-depth, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders explored perceived deviations between the Childsmile programme 'as delivered’ and its Programme Theory (PT). The data was thematically analysed using constant comparative methods. Findings were shared with key programme stakeholders and discussions around likely impact and necessary actions were facilitated by the authors. Documentary review and ongoing observations of programme meetings were undertaken to assess the extent to which learning was acted upon.

Results

On the whole, the activities documented in Childsmile’s PT were implemented as intended. This paper purposefully focuses on those activities where variation in delivery was evident. Differences resulted from the stage of roll-out reached and the flexibility given to individual NHS boards to tailor local implementation. Some adaptations were thought to have diverged from the central features of Childsmile’s PT, to the extent that there was a risk to achieving outcomes. The methods employed prompted national service improvement action, and proposals for local action by individual NHS boards to address this.

Conclusions

The TBE approach provided a platform, to direct attention to areas of risk within a national health initiative, and to agree which intervention components were 'core’ to its hypothesised success. The study demonstrates that PT can be used as a 'translational tool’ to facilitate instrumental use of evaluative findings to optimise implementation within a complex health improvement programme.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Donaldson S, Lipsey M: Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: developing practical knowledge. The sage handbook of evaluation. Edited by: Shaw I, Greene J, Mark M. 2006, London: Sage Publications Ltd, 56-75. Donaldson S, Lipsey M: Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: developing practical knowledge. The sage handbook of evaluation. Edited by: Shaw I, Greene J, Mark M. 2006, London: Sage Publications Ltd, 56-75.
2.
go back to reference Funnell SC, Rogers PJ: Purposeful program theory: effective use of theories of change and logic models. 2011, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Funnell SC, Rogers PJ: Purposeful program theory: effective use of theories of change and logic models. 2011, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
3.
go back to reference Bonner L: Using theory-based evaluation to build evidence-based health and social care policy and practice. Crit Public Health. 2003, 13 (1): 77-92. 10.1080/0958159031000100224.CrossRef Bonner L: Using theory-based evaluation to build evidence-based health and social care policy and practice. Crit Public Health. 2003, 13 (1): 77-92. 10.1080/0958159031000100224.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Connell JP, Kubisch AC: Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects, and problems. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives volume 2: theory, measurement, and analysis. Edited by: Fulbright-Anderson K, Kubisch AC, Connell JP. 1998, Washington DC: The Aspen Institute Connell JP, Kubisch AC: Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects, and problems. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives volume 2: theory, measurement, and analysis. Edited by: Fulbright-Anderson K, Kubisch AC, Connell JP. 1998, Washington DC: The Aspen Institute
5.
go back to reference Sullivan H, Stewart M: Who owns the theory of change?. Evaluation. 2006, 12 (2): 179-199. 10.1177/1356389006066971.CrossRef Sullivan H, Stewart M: Who owns the theory of change?. Evaluation. 2006, 12 (2): 179-199. 10.1177/1356389006066971.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Renger R, Titcomb A: A three-step approach to teaching logic models. Americal J Eval. 2002, 23 (4): 493-503.CrossRef Renger R, Titcomb A: A three-step approach to teaching logic models. Americal J Eval. 2002, 23 (4): 493-503.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S: A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci. 2007, 2: 40-10.1186/1748-5908-2-40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S: A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci. 2007, 2: 40-10.1186/1748-5908-2-40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Blamey A, Mackenzie M: Theories of change and realistic evaluation: peas in a pod or apples and oranges?. Evaluation. 2007, 13 (4): 439-455. 10.1177/1356389007082129.CrossRef Blamey A, Mackenzie M: Theories of change and realistic evaluation: peas in a pod or apples and oranges?. Evaluation. 2007, 13 (4): 439-455. 10.1177/1356389007082129.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2008, 337: 979-983. 10.1136/bmj.a979.CrossRef Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2008, 337: 979-983. 10.1136/bmj.a979.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Rogers PJ: Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation. 2008, 14 (1): 29-48. 10.1177/1356389007084674.CrossRef Rogers PJ: Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation. 2008, 14 (1): 29-48. 10.1177/1356389007084674.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Mackenzie M, Blamey A, Halliday E, Maxwell M, McCollam A, McDaid D, MacLean J, Woodhouse A, Platt S: Measuring the tail of the dog that doesn’t bark in the night: the case of the national evaluation of choose life (the national strategy and action plan to prevent suicide in scotland). BMC Public Health. 2007, 7 (1): 146-10.1186/1471-2458-7-146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mackenzie M, Blamey A, Halliday E, Maxwell M, McCollam A, McDaid D, MacLean J, Woodhouse A, Platt S: Measuring the tail of the dog that doesn’t bark in the night: the case of the national evaluation of choose life (the national strategy and action plan to prevent suicide in scotland). BMC Public Health. 2007, 7 (1): 146-10.1186/1471-2458-7-146.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Birckmayer JD, Weiss CH: Theory-based evaluation. Promoting human wellness: New frontiers for research, practice, and policy. Edited by: Jamner M, Stokols D. 2000, Berkeley: University of California Press, 163-187. Birckmayer JD, Weiss CH: Theory-based evaluation. Promoting human wellness: New frontiers for research, practice, and policy. Edited by: Jamner M, Stokols D. 2000, Berkeley: University of California Press, 163-187.
13.
go back to reference Scriven M: Minimalist theory of evaluation: the least theory that practice requires. Am J Eval. 1998, 19: 57-70.CrossRef Scriven M: Minimalist theory of evaluation: the least theory that practice requires. Am J Eval. 1998, 19: 57-70.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Stufflebeam DL: The 21st century CIPP model. Evaluation roots. Edited by: Alkin MC. 2004, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 245-266.CrossRef Stufflebeam DL: The 21st century CIPP model. Evaluation roots. Edited by: Alkin MC. 2004, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 245-266.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009, 4: 50-10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009, 4: 50-10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Eccles MP, Armstrong D, Baker R, Cleary K, Davies H, Davies S, Glasziou P, Ilott I, Kinmonth A-L, Leng G, Logan S, Marteau T, Michie S, Rogers H, Rycroft-Malone J, Sibbald B: An implementation research agenda. Implement Sci. 2009, 4: 18-10.1186/1748-5908-4-18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Eccles MP, Armstrong D, Baker R, Cleary K, Davies H, Davies S, Glasziou P, Ilott I, Kinmonth A-L, Leng G, Logan S, Marteau T, Michie S, Rogers H, Rycroft-Malone J, Sibbald B: An implementation research agenda. Implement Sci. 2009, 4: 18-10.1186/1748-5908-4-18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Cousins JB, Earl LM: The case for participatory evaluation. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1992, 14 (4): 397-418.CrossRef Cousins JB, Earl LM: The case for participatory evaluation. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1992, 14 (4): 397-418.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Ledermann S: Exploring the necessary conditions for evaluation use in program change. Am J Eval. 2012, 33 (2): 159-178. 10.1177/1098214011411573.CrossRef Ledermann S: Exploring the necessary conditions for evaluation use in program change. Am J Eval. 2012, 33 (2): 159-178. 10.1177/1098214011411573.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Beeston C, Halliday E: Learning across evaluations. 2007, Edinburgh: NHS Health Scotland Beeston C, Halliday E: Learning across evaluations. 2007, Edinburgh: NHS Health Scotland
20.
go back to reference Mackenzie M, Blamey A: The practice and the theory: lessons from the application of a theories of change approach. Evaluation. 2005, 11 (2): 151-168. 10.1177/1356389005055538.CrossRef Mackenzie M, Blamey A: The practice and the theory: lessons from the application of a theories of change approach. Evaluation. 2005, 11 (2): 151-168. 10.1177/1356389005055538.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Carvalho S, White H: Theory-based evaluation: the case of social funds. Am J Eval. 2004, 25 (2): 141-160.CrossRef Carvalho S, White H: Theory-based evaluation: the case of social funds. Am J Eval. 2004, 25 (2): 141-160.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Patton MQ: Utilization focused evaluation. 2008, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd, 4 Patton MQ: Utilization focused evaluation. 2008, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd, 4
23.
go back to reference O’Sullivan RG: Collaborative evaluation within a framework of stakeholder-oriented evaluation approaches. Eval Program Plann. 2012, 35 (4): 518-522. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.12.005.CrossRefPubMed O’Sullivan RG: Collaborative evaluation within a framework of stakeholder-oriented evaluation approaches. Eval Program Plann. 2012, 35 (4): 518-522. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.12.005.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Coryn CLS, Noakes LA, Westine CD, Schröter DC: A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am J Eval. 2011, 32 (2): 199-226. 10.1177/1098214010389321.CrossRef Coryn CLS, Noakes LA, Westine CD, Schröter DC: A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. Am J Eval. 2011, 32 (2): 199-226. 10.1177/1098214010389321.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Scottish Executive: Final report. National health demonstration projects evaluation task group review, October - December 2003. 2004, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Scottish Executive: Final report. National health demonstration projects evaluation task group review, October - December 2003. 2004, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive
26.
go back to reference Barnes M, Matka E, Sullivan H: Evidence, understanding and complexity: evaluation in non-linear systems. Evaluation. 2003, 9 (3): 265-284. 10.1177/13563890030093003.CrossRef Barnes M, Matka E, Sullivan H: Evidence, understanding and complexity: evaluation in non-linear systems. Evaluation. 2003, 9 (3): 265-284. 10.1177/13563890030093003.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Carroll M, David M, Jacobs B, Judge K, Wilkes B: A realistic/theory of change approach to the evaluation of health promotion in small- and medium-sized enterprises in Sandwell. Soc Policy Soc. 2005, 4 (04): 393-10.1017/S147474640500254X.CrossRef Carroll M, David M, Jacobs B, Judge K, Wilkes B: A realistic/theory of change approach to the evaluation of health promotion in small- and medium-sized enterprises in Sandwell. Soc Policy Soc. 2005, 4 (04): 393-10.1017/S147474640500254X.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Donaldson S, Gooler L: Theory-driven evaluation in action: lessons from a $20 million statewide work and health initiative. Eval Program Plann. 2003, 26: 355-366. 10.1016/S0149-7189(03)00052-1.CrossRef Donaldson S, Gooler L: Theory-driven evaluation in action: lessons from a $20 million statewide work and health initiative. Eval Program Plann. 2003, 26: 355-366. 10.1016/S0149-7189(03)00052-1.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Sielbeck-Bowen K: Development of local program theory: using theory-oriented evaluation to make a difference. Field Methods. 2000, 12 (2): 129-152. 10.1177/1525822X0001200203.CrossRef Sielbeck-Bowen K: Development of local program theory: using theory-oriented evaluation to make a difference. Field Methods. 2000, 12 (2): 129-152. 10.1177/1525822X0001200203.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Page M, Parker S, Renger R: How using a logic model refined our program to ensure success. Health Promot Pract. 2009, 10 (1): 76-82.CrossRefPubMed Page M, Parker S, Renger R: How using a logic model refined our program to ensure success. Health Promot Pract. 2009, 10 (1): 76-82.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Hawkins S, Clinton-Sherrod A, Irvin N, Hart L, Russell S: Logic models as a tool for sexual violence prevention program development. Health Promot Pract. 2009, 10 (1): 29-37.CrossRef Hawkins S, Clinton-Sherrod A, Irvin N, Hart L, Russell S: Logic models as a tool for sexual violence prevention program development. Health Promot Pract. 2009, 10 (1): 29-37.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Bracht M, Heffer M, O’Brien K: Development, implementation and evaluation of a community- and hospital-based respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis program. Adv Neonatal Care. 2005, 5 (1): 39-49. 10.1016/j.adnc.2004.10.005.CrossRefPubMed Bracht M, Heffer M, O’Brien K: Development, implementation and evaluation of a community- and hospital-based respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis program. Adv Neonatal Care. 2005, 5 (1): 39-49. 10.1016/j.adnc.2004.10.005.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Macpherson LMD, Ball GE, Brewster L, Duane B, Hodges C-L, Wright W, Gnich W, Rodgers J, McCall DR, Turner S, Conway DI: Childsmile: the national child oral health improvement programme in Scotland: part 1: establishment and development. Br Dent J. 2010, 209: 73-78. 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.628.CrossRefPubMed Macpherson LMD, Ball GE, Brewster L, Duane B, Hodges C-L, Wright W, Gnich W, Rodgers J, McCall DR, Turner S, Conway DI: Childsmile: the national child oral health improvement programme in Scotland: part 1: establishment and development. Br Dent J. 2010, 209: 73-78. 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.628.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Pawson R: Evidence-based policy: a realist persepctive. 2004, Abingdon: Routledge Pawson R: Evidence-based policy: a realist persepctive. 2004, Abingdon: Routledge
36.
go back to reference Glaser B, Strauss A: The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. 1967, New York: Aldine Glaser B, Strauss A: The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. 1967, New York: Aldine
37.
go back to reference Keith RE, Hopp FP, Subramanian U, Wiitala W, Lowery JC: Fidelity of implementation: development and testing of a measure. Implement Sci. 2010, 5: 99-10.1186/1748-5908-5-99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Keith RE, Hopp FP, Subramanian U, Wiitala W, Lowery JC: Fidelity of implementation: development and testing of a measure. Implement Sci. 2010, 5: 99-10.1186/1748-5908-5-99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
go back to reference Government S: National oral health improvement strategy for priority groups: frail older people, people with special care needs and those who are homeless. 2012, Edinburgh: Scottish Government Government S: National oral health improvement strategy for priority groups: frail older people, people with special care needs and those who are homeless. 2012, Edinburgh: Scottish Government
39.
go back to reference Mark MM, Henry GT: The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation. 2004, 10 (1): 35-57. 10.1177/1356389004042326.CrossRef Mark MM, Henry GT: The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation. 2004, 10 (1): 35-57. 10.1177/1356389004042326.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Johnson K, Greenseid LO, Toal SA, King JA, Lawrenz F, Volkov B: Research on evaluation use: a review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. Am J Eval. 2009, 30 (3): 377-410. 10.1177/1098214009341660.CrossRef Johnson K, Greenseid LO, Toal SA, King JA, Lawrenz F, Volkov B: Research on evaluation use: a review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. Am J Eval. 2009, 30 (3): 377-410. 10.1177/1098214009341660.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Cameron A, Salisbury C, Lart R, Stewart K, Peckham S, Calnan M, Purdy S, Thorp H: Policy makers’ perceptions on the use of evidence from evaluations. Evid Policy. 2011, 7 (4): 429-447. 10.1332/174426411X603443.CrossRef Cameron A, Salisbury C, Lart R, Stewart K, Peckham S, Calnan M, Purdy S, Thorp H: Policy makers’ perceptions on the use of evidence from evaluations. Evid Policy. 2011, 7 (4): 429-447. 10.1332/174426411X603443.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Mackenzie M, Blamey A, Hanlon P: Using and generating evidence: policy makers’ reflections on commissioning and learning from the Scottish health demonstration projects. Evid Policy. 2006, 2 (2): 211-226. 10.1332/174426406777068885.CrossRef Mackenzie M, Blamey A, Hanlon P: Using and generating evidence: policy makers’ reflections on commissioning and learning from the Scottish health demonstration projects. Evid Policy. 2006, 2 (2): 211-226. 10.1332/174426406777068885.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Can programme theory be used as a 'translational tool’ to optimise health service delivery in a national early years’ initiative in Scotland: a case study
Authors
Jennifer Eaves
Wendy Gnich
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-425

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

BMC Health Services Research 1/2013 Go to the issue