Evaluation of UK integrated care pilots: Research protocol

International Journal of Integrated Care

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2010, Pages

  Ling, Tom ^a   Bardsley, Martin ^b   Adams, John ^a   Lewis, Richard ^c   Roland, Martin ^d  

^a RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^b The Nuffield Trust   (United Kingdom)

^c Ernst and Young Global Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Integrated care; Protocol

Indexed keywords

EID: 82955190767     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15684156     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5334/ijic.513     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Glasby J, Dickinson H, Peck E. Partnership working in health and social care. Health and Social Care in the Community 2006;14(5):373–4.
2. Powell Davies G, Williams AM, Larsen K, Perkins D, Roland M, Harris M. Coordinating primary health care: an analysis of the outcomes of a systematic review. Medical Journal of Australia 2008;188(8 Suppl):S65–8.
3. Department of Health, UK. Integrated Care Programme: prospectus for potential pilots, 2008. [webpage on the internet] [cited August 31, 2010]. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/docu-ments/digitalasset/dh_089370.pdf.
4. Grone O, Garcia-Barbero M. Integrated care: a position paper of the WHO European office for integrated health care services. International Journal of Integrated Care [serial online] 2001 Jun 1; 1. Available from: http://www.ijic.org/. URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-100270.
5. Epping-Jordan JE, Pruitt SD, Bengoa R, Wagner EH. Improving the quality of health care for chronic conditions. Quality and Safety in Health Care 2004;13:299–305.
6. Fulop N, Mowlem A, Edwards N. Building integrated care: lessons from the UK and elsewhere. London: The NHS Confederation. 2005. [webpage on the internet] [cited August 31, 2010]. Available from: http://www.nhsconfed.org/Publications/Documents/Building%20integrated%20care.pdf.
7. Schwandt TA. The relevance of practical knowledge traditions to evaluation practice. In: Smith NL, Brandon PR, editors. Fundamental issues in evaluation. New York: Guildford Press; 2008. p. 29–40.
8. Ling T, Villalba L. The performance audit handbook. Cambridge: RAND Europe Cambridge; 2009.
9. Hurteau M, Houle S, Mongiat S. How legitimate and justified are judgements in programme evaluation? Evaluation 2009;15(3):307–19.
10. Scriven M. The logic of evaluation. Inverness CA: Edge Press; 1980.
11. Weiss CH. Nothing as practical as a good theory: exploring theory based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: Connell J, Kubisch AC, Schorr LB, Weiss CH, editors. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: concepts, methods and contexts. Washington DC: The Aspen Institute; 1995. p. 65–92.
12. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development Guide. 2001. [webpage on the internet] [cited August 31, 2010]. Available from: http://www.wkkf.org/knowledge-center/resources/2010/Logic-Model-Development-Guide.aspx.
13. Audit Scotland. The map to success. 2000. [webpage on the internet] [cited August 31, 2010]. Available from: www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/local/2000/nr_010201_process_mapping.pdf.
14. Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research. AHRQ Quality Indicators—Guide to prevention quality indicators: hospital admission for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. October 2001, Version 3.1 (March 12, 2007). Department of Health and Human Services. [webpage on the internet] [cited August 31, 2010]. Available from: http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov.
15. Purdy S, Griffin T, Salisbury C, Sharp D. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions: terminology and disease coding need to be more specific to aid policy makers and clinicians. Public Health 2009;123(2):169–73.
16. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrica 1983;70(1):41–55.
17. Hansen BB. The prognostic analogue of the propensity score. Biometrica 2008;95:481–8.
18. Bang H, Robins JM. Double robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics 2005;61(4):962– 73.
19. Pawson R, Tilley. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage; 1998.
20. Ling T. What counts as “sufficient evidence” and a “compelling argument” in evaluation? In: Rieper O, Leeuw F, Ling T, editors. The evidence book: concepts, generation and use of evidence. Washington: Transaction Publishing; 2009. p. 53–65. [Comparative Policy Evaluation, vol 15].