Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Debate

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

Authors: Thomas Mills, Rebecca Lawton, Laura Sheard

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
HS&DR commissioned the Yorkshire Quality and Safety Group of the Bradford Institute of Health Research to carry out the study
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:1258.CrossRef Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:1258.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43:267–76.CrossRef Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43:267–76.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hawe P. Lessons from complex interventions to improve health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;36:307–23.CrossRef Hawe P. Lessons from complex interventions to improve health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015;36:307–23.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Fletcher A, Jamal F, Moore G, Evans RE, Murphy S, Bonell C. Realist complex intervention science: applying realist principles across all phases of the medical research council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Evaluation. 2016;22:286–303.CrossRef Fletcher A, Jamal F, Moore G, Evans RE, Murphy S, Bonell C. Realist complex intervention science: applying realist principles across all phases of the medical research council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Evaluation. 2016;22:286–303.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Ling T. Evaluating complex and unfolding interventions in real time. Evaluation. 2012;18:79–91.CrossRef Ling T. Evaluating complex and unfolding interventions in real time. Evaluation. 2012;18:79–91.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med. 2018;16:95.CrossRef Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med. 2018;16:95.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bisset S, Potvin L, Daniel M. The adaptive nature of implementation practice: case study of a school-based nutrition education intervention. Eval Program Planning. 2010;12:004. Bisset S, Potvin L, Daniel M. The adaptive nature of implementation practice: case study of a school-based nutrition education intervention. Eval Program Planning. 2010;12:004.
8.
go back to reference Lalor JG, Casey D, Elliott N, Coyne I, Comiskey C, Higgins A, Murphy K, Devane D, Begley C. Using case study within a sequential explanatory design to evaluate the impact of specialist and advanced practice roles on clinical outcomes: the SCAPE study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:55.CrossRef Lalor JG, Casey D, Elliott N, Coyne I, Comiskey C, Higgins A, Murphy K, Devane D, Begley C. Using case study within a sequential explanatory design to evaluate the impact of specialist and advanced practice roles on clinical outcomes: the SCAPE study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:55.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Oosthuizen C, Louw J. Developing program theory for purveyor programs. Implement Sci. 2013;8:23.CrossRef Oosthuizen C, Louw J. Developing program theory for purveyor programs. Implement Sci. 2013;8:23.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Stone VI, Lane JP. Modeling technology innovation: how science, engineering, and industry methods can combine to generate beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Implement Sci. 2012;7:44.CrossRef Stone VI, Lane JP. Modeling technology innovation: how science, engineering, and industry methods can combine to generate beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Implement Sci. 2012;7:44.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Greenwood-Lee J, Hawe P, Nettel-Aguirre A, Shiell A, Marshall DA. Complex intervention modelling should capture the dynamics of adaptation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:51.CrossRef Greenwood-Lee J, Hawe P, Nettel-Aguirre A, Shiell A, Marshall DA. Complex intervention modelling should capture the dynamics of adaptation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:51.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Rogers PJ. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation. 2008;14:29–48.CrossRef Rogers PJ. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation. 2008;14:29–48.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Funnell S, Rogers P. Purposeful program theory: effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley; 2011. Funnell S, Rogers P. Purposeful program theory: effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley; 2011.
14.
go back to reference Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Chandler J, Hawkes CA, Crichton N, Allen C, Bullock I, Strunin L. The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework. Implement Sci. 2013;8:28.CrossRef Rycroft-Malone J, Seers K, Chandler J, Hawkes CA, Crichton N, Allen C, Bullock I, Strunin L. The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework. Implement Sci. 2013;8:28.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Baxter SK, Blank L, Woods HB, Payne N, Rimmer M, Goyder E. Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: describing complex pathways in referral management interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:62.CrossRef Baxter SK, Blank L, Woods HB, Payne N, Rimmer M, Goyder E. Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: describing complex pathways in referral management interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:62.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Belford M, Robertson T, Jepson R. Using evaluability assessment to assess local community development health programmes: a Scottish case-study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:70.CrossRef Belford M, Robertson T, Jepson R. Using evaluability assessment to assess local community development health programmes: a Scottish case-study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:70.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;3:117.CrossRef Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;3:117.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.CrossRef Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien K. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Davidoff F, Dixon-Woods M, Leviton L, Michie S. Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24:228–38.CrossRef Davidoff F, Dixon-Woods M, Leviton L, Michie S. Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24:228–38.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Bennett B, Provost L. What’s your theory? Driver diagram services as tool for building and testing theories for improvement. Qual Prog. 2015:36–43. Bennett B, Provost L. What’s your theory? Driver diagram services as tool for building and testing theories for improvement. Qual Prog. 2015:36–43.
25.
go back to reference Rehfuess EA, Booth A, Brereton L, Burns J, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Oortwijn W, Pfadenhauer LM, Tummers M, van der Wilt GJ, Rohwer A. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a priori, staged, and iterative approaches. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9:13–24.CrossRef Rehfuess EA, Booth A, Brereton L, Burns J, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Oortwijn W, Pfadenhauer LM, Tummers M, van der Wilt GJ, Rohwer A. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a priori, staged, and iterative approaches. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9:13–24.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Cochrane. Developing Logic Models, Cochrane Infectious Diseases, Effective Healthcare Research Consortium, 2016 Cochrane. Developing Logic Models, Cochrane Infectious Diseases, Effective Healthcare Research Consortium, 2016
28.
go back to reference Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10.
29.
go back to reference Pfadenhauer LM, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Booth A, Hofmann B, Wahlster P, Polus S, Burns J, Brereton L, Rehfuess E. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the context and implementation of complex interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci. 2016;12:21.5. Pfadenhauer LM, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Lysdahl KB, Booth A, Hofmann B, Wahlster P, Polus S, Burns J, Brereton L, Rehfuess E. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the context and implementation of complex interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci. 2016;12:21.5.
30.
go back to reference Hack TF, Ruether JD, Weir LM, Grenier D, Degner LF. Study protocol: addressing evidence and context to facilitate transfer and uptake of consultation recording use in oncology: a knowledge translation implementation study. Implement Sci. 2011;6:20.CrossRef Hack TF, Ruether JD, Weir LM, Grenier D, Degner LF. Study protocol: addressing evidence and context to facilitate transfer and uptake of consultation recording use in oncology: a knowledge translation implementation study. Implement Sci. 2011;6:20.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What’s in a Mechanism? Development of a Key Concept in Realist Evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10:49.CrossRef Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What’s in a Mechanism? Development of a Key Concept in Realist Evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10:49.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Rittel HWJ, Webber M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973;4:155–69.CrossRef Rittel HWJ, Webber M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973;4:155–69.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Advancing complexity science in healthcare research: the logic of logic models
Authors
Thomas Mills
Rebecca Lawton
Laura Sheard
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0701-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue