Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A priori, staged, and iterative approaches

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 13-24

  Rehfuess, Eva A ^a   Booth, Andrew ^b   Brereton, Louise ^b,c   Burns, Jacob ^a   Gerhardus, Ansgar ^d   Mozygemba, Kati ^d   Oortwijn, Wija ^e   Pfadenhauer, Lisa M ^a   Tummers, Marcia ^f   van der Wilt, Gert Jan ^f   Rohwer, Anke ^a,g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LINCOLN   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

^e ECORYS Netherlands   (Netherlands)

^f RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^g UNIVERSITY OF STELLENBOSCH   (South Africa)

Author keywords

complex intervention; framework; guidance; logic model; theory of change

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; EUROPEAN UNION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; LITERATURE; LOGIC; PROCEDURES; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; EUROPEAN UNION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; LOGIC; MODELS, THEORETICAL; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 85043601325     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1254     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Rehfuess EA, Akl EA. Current experience with applying the GRADE approach to public health interventions: an empirical study. BMC Public Health 2013;13:9.
2. Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:1209-1214.
3. Shiell A, Hawe P, Gold L. Complex interventions or complex Systems? Implications for health economic evaluation. BMJ 2008;336:1281-1283.
4. Rutter H, Savona N, Glonti K, et al. Why we need a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet 2017.
5. 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:a1655.
6. Galea S, Riddle M, Kaplan G. Causal thinking and complex systems approaches in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:97-106.
7. Rehfuess EA, Best N, Briggs DJ, Joffe M. Diagram-based Analysis of Causal Systems (DACS): elucidating inter-relationships between determinants of acute lower respiratory infections among children in sub-Saharan Africa. Emerg Themes Epidemiol 2013;10:13.
8. Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, et al. Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Syn Meth. 2011;2:33-42.
9. Chen H-T. Theory-Driven Evaluations. Newbury Park (CA): SAGE; 1997.
10. Kneale D, Thomas J, Harris K. Developing and optimising the use of logic models in systematic reviews: exploring practice and good practice in the use of programme theory in reviews. PLoS One 2015;10:e0142187.
11. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. Newbury Park (CA): SAGE; 1990.
12. Donaldson SI. Program Theory-Driven Evaluation Science: Strategies and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2007.
13. Wildschut LP. Theory-based evaluation, logic modelling and the experience of SA non-governmental organisations. PhD, Stellenbosch University; 2014.
14. Kellog WK. Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action: Logic Model Development Guide. Michigan: Kellog Foundation; 2004.
15. Rohwer A, Pfadenhauer L, Burns J, et al. Use of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2017b;83:37-47.
16. Guise JM, Chang C, Viswanathan M, et al. Systematic Reviews of Complex Multicomponent Health Care Interventions. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014.
17. CDC, Division for heart disease and stroke prevention. Undated. Evaluation Guide: Developing and Using a Logic Model. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available: https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/programs/spha/evaluation_guides/docs/logic_model.pdf. Accessed 10/05/2017.
18. Sundra, D. L., Scherer, J. & Anderson, L.A. 2003. A guide to logic model development for CDC's Prevention Research Centre, Atlanta: Centre for disease control and prevention. Available: https://research.utep.edu/Portals/99/REASDocs/Forms/cdc-logic-model-development.pdf Accessed 13/01/2017.
19. Fielden SJ, Rusch ML, Masinda MT, Sands J, Frankish J, Evoy B. Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: a Canadian case study. Eval Program Plann 2007;30:115-124.
20. Eakin JM, Mykhalovskiy E. Reframing the evaluation of qualitative health research: reflections on a review of appraisal guidelines in the health sciences. J Eval Clin Pract 2003;9:187-194.
21. Brereton L, Wahlster P, Lysdahl KB, et al. Integrated assessment of home based palliative care with and without reinforced caregiver support: a demonstration of INTEGRATE-HTA methodological guidances. Available: http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/. Accessed 13/01/2017; 2016.
22. Burns J, Boogaard H, Turley R, et al. Interventions to reduce ambient particulate matter air pollution and their effect on health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014, Issue 1. Art. 2014;No.: CD010919.
23. Rohwer A, Motaze N, Rehfuess EA, Young T. E-learning of evidence-based health care to increase EBHC competencies in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2017a;2017:4.
24. Pfadenhauer LM, Burns J, Rohwer A, Rehfuess EA. Effectiveness of interventions to reduce exposure to lead through consumer products and drinking water: a systematic review. Environ Res 2016;147:525-536.
25. Thomson H, Thomas S, Sellstrom E, Petticrew M. Housing improvements for health and associated socio-economic outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;CD008657.
26. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review—a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10(Suppl 1):21-34.
27. Dore KL, Roberts C, Wright S. Widening perspectives: reframing the way we research selection. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2017;22(2):565-572.
28. Baxter S, Killoran A, Kelly MP, Goyder E. Synthesizing diverse evidence: the use of primary qualitative data analysis methods and logic models in public health reviews. Public Health 2010;124:99-106.
29. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1:28.
30. Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:35.
31. Wahlster P, Brereton L, Burns J, et al. Guidance on the integrated assessment of complex health technologies—the INTEGRATE-HTA model. Available: http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/. Accessed 13/01/2017; 2016.
32. Booth A, Carroll C. Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Information & Libraries Journal 2015;32(3):220-235.
33. Von Philipsborn P, Stratil JM, Burns J, et al. Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016, Issue 7, Art. 2016;No.: CD012292.
34. Dwyer JJ, Makin S. Using a program logic model that focuses on performance measurement to develop a program. Can J Public Health 1997;88:421-425.
35. Noyes J, Gough D, Lewin S, et al. A research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:1262-1270.
36. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.