Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: describing complex pathways in referral management interventions

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Elizabeth Goyder¹  Melanie Rimmer¹  Nick Payne¹  Helen Buckley Woods¹  Lindsay Blank¹  Susan K Baxter¹ 

[1] School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S14DA, UK

关键词: Referral management;    Referral systems;    Demand management;    Logic model;    Evidence synthesis;    Methodology;    Systematic review;   

Others  :  866345
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-14-62

 received in 2014-01-16, accepted in 2014-04-30,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

There is increasing interest in innovative methods to carry out systematic reviews of complex interventions. Theory-based approaches, such as logic models, have been suggested as a means of providing additional insights beyond that obtained via conventional review methods.

Methods

This paper reports the use of an innovative method which combines systematic review processes with logic model techniques to synthesise a broad range of literature. The potential value of the model produced was explored with stakeholders.

Results

The review identified 295 papers that met the inclusion criteria. The papers consisted of 141 intervention studies and 154 non-intervention quantitative and qualitative articles. A logic model was systematically built from these studies. The model outlines interventions, short term outcomes, moderating and mediating factors and long term demand management outcomes and impacts. Interventions were grouped into typologies of practitioner education, process change, system change, and patient intervention. Short-term outcomes identified that may result from these interventions were changed physician or patient knowledge, beliefs or attitudes and also interventions related to changed doctor-patient interaction. A range of factors which may influence whether these outcomes lead to long term change were detailed. Demand management outcomes and intended impacts included content of referral, rate of referral, and doctor or patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

The logic model details evidence and assumptions underpinning the complex pathway from interventions to demand management impact. The method offers a useful addition to systematic review methodologies.

Trial registration number

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013004037.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Baxter et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Faulkner A, Mills N, Bainton D, Baxter K, Kinnersley P, Peters TJ, Sharp D: A systematic review of the effect of primary care-based service innovations on quality and patterns of referral to specialist secondary care. Brit J Gen Pract 2003, 53:878-884.
• [2]Weiss CH: Nothing as practical as a good theory: exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Edited by Connell JP, Kubisch AC, Schoor LB, Weiss CH. Washington DC: Aspen Institute; 1995:65-69.
• [3]Plsek PE, Greenhalgh T: The challenge of complexity in healthcare. BMJ 2001, 323:625-628.
• [4]Miles A: Complexity in medicine and healthcare: people and systems, theory and practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2009, 15:409-410.
• [5]Pawson R: Evidence-based policy: the promise of realist synthesis. Evaluation 2002, 8:340-358.
• [6]Rogers PJ: Theory-based evaluation: reflections ten years on. N Dir Eval 2007, 114:63-81.
• [7]Anderson LM, Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Armstong R, Ueffing E, Baker P, Francis D, Tugwell D: Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews. Res Synth Meth 2011, 2:33-42.
• [8]Rogers PJ: Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation 2008, 14:29-48.
• [9]Wallace J, Nwosu B, Clarke M: Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions. BMJ Open 2012, 2:e001220. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001220
• [10]Baxter S, Baxter S, Killoran A, Kelly M, Goyder E: Synthesizing diverse evidence: the use of primary qualitative data analysis methods and logic models in public health reviews. Pub Health 2010, 124:99-106.
• [11]Allmark P, Baxter S, Goyder E, Guillaume L, Crofton-Martin G: Assessing the health benefits of advice services: using research evidence and logic model methods to explore complex pathways. Health Soc Care Comm 2013, 21:59-68.
• [12]EPPI-Centre: Methods for Conducting Systematic Reviews. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2010.
• [13]Grant MJ, Brettle A, Long AF: Developing a Review Question: A Spiral Approach to Literature Searching. Oxford; 2000. [Poster Presentation. Beyond the Basics of Systematic Reviews]
• [14]Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P: Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2007., 7doi:10.1186/1472-6947-7-16
• [15]The Cochrane Collaboration: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0, 2011. [Handbook.cochrane.org]
• [16]Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) qualitative research checklist [http://www.casp-uk.net/wpcontent/uploads/2011/11/CASP_Qualitative_Appraisal_Checklist_14oct10.pdf webcite]
• [17]Hoogendoom WE, Van Poppel MN, Bongers PM, Koes BW, Bouter LM: Physical load during work and leisure time as risk factors for back pain. Scand J Work Environ Health 1999, 25:387-403.
• [18]Thomas A, Harden A: Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008., 8doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
• [19]Weiss CH: Theory-based evaluation: past present and future. N Dir Eval 1997, 76:68-81.
• [20]Blamey A, Mackenzie M: Theories of change and realistic evaluation: peas in a pod or apples and oranges? Evaluation 2007, 13:439-455.
• [21]Dixon-Woods M, Fitzpatrick R, Roberts K: Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. J Eval Clin Pract 2001, 2:125-133.
• [22]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., 13doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-117
• [23]Ritchie J, Lewis J: Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage; 2003.
• [24]McDonald KM, Schultz EM, Chang C: Evaluating the state of quality-improvement science through evidence synthesis: insights from the Closing the Quality Gap Series. Perm J 2013, 17:52-61.
• [25]Vogel I: Review of the Use of Theory of Change in International Development: Review Report. London: Department of International Development; 2012.