Skip to main content

Table 1 Logic Model of NIHR CLAHRC NWC Partners’ Priority Programme (PPP) for Cohorts One and Two

From: The value of involving patients and public in health services research and evaluation: a qualitative study

What we invest: What we do: Who we reach: What the short-term results are: What the medium-term results are: What the long-term impact(s) is/are:
Time from partner organisations (NHS, LA, University) and public advisors to attend/support:
• Workshop participation (5 sessions)
• CIG Support meetings (typically 3 between workshops)
• Provision/receipt of any additional training (as required)
• Monthly review meetings
• Public advisor induction
Funding to support public advisors involvement
Funding to support Interns
Funding for venues and refreshments
Website hosting of workshop and training materials.
Methodological input at workshops and CIG Support meetings.
Facilitate CIGs.
Research training programme for interns (open to all CIGs).
Development of bespoke templates and workbook to steer project-level evaluation planning/design.
Health inequalities/HIAT awareness raising and support.
Public engagement awareness raising and support.
Dissemination support and event(s).
NHS and LA Partners
• Project evaluation leads (CIG members attending workshops)
• Interns
• Local partners involved in project-level evaluation teams.
Public advisors
University partners
• Facilitators
• Methodological experts
Participating teams would co-learn and be facilitated to co-apply evaluative, evidence synthesis, analytical and reflective concepts and techniques to:
• Understand the concept of levels of evaluation and the types of evaluation that are possible and relevant to their project.
• Map the context for evaluation surrounding their project including their desired outcomes.
• Define the question(s) to be addressed, the approaches and methods relevant to their evaluation.
• Design and plan their evaluation in order to inform on-going local developments and change.
• Consider how to utilise health equity frameworks within their project.
• Understand the role and contribution of public advisors to their evaluation.
• Personal learning and development.
• CIGs will have supported project-level Evaluations of initiatives.
• Health inequality perspective integrated throughout project-level evaluations of initiatives.
• Public advisors fully involved at all stages of the project-level evaluations of initiatives.
• Project-level evaluations will have fed into the overall cross-CLAHRC analysis (programme-level) addressing the PPP question as a whole.
By encouraging mixed teams of practitioners, commissioners, patients, public and researchers to work together, and by enhancing their skills, knowledge and expertise, the PPP aims are:
• PPP has contributed to evidence informed practice and negotiated change within and across local organisations delivering new models of care.
• Capacity developed with our partners to embed evaluation into service transformation and commissioning.
• Evaluation seen as a tool for change management – and used as such by partners.
• Participants continue to utilise learning in other contexts and to train colleagues in evaluation approaches.
• Use of HIAT and consideration of health inequalities is systematized by participants.
• Public involvement is systematized in service change and evaluation by participants.
• Evaluation as learning - to foster a transparent, inquisitive, and self-critical culture across the CLAHRC NWC Partners.
• Knowledge mobilisation infrastructures fostered that are sustainable beyond CLAHRC.
INDICATIVE OUTCOME MEASURES – What are we looking for?
• Numbers of participants reached.
• A set of clearly defined project evaluation plans from each of the teams
• Health inequality is embedded within each element of the Project and evaluation plan.
• Public advisors are recruited and included as evaluation team members.
• Personal learning and development; whether needs identified prior to workshops have been addressed.
• Participants’ experiences/views on the usefulness/pertinence of the support given.
• Evidence and data found, generated, analysed and used to inform the evaluation process at both project and programme level.
• Teams supported to implement an evaluation with a focus on tackling health inequalities.
• Summary reports providing recommendations to local organisations looking to adopt, develop or adjust new models of health and care.
• Public/patients fully involved and engaged in the evaluation process.
• A network of peer support is developed.
• Plans for dissemination, including: CLAHRC Bites; peer-review journal articles co-produced.
• Overall programme of work completed addressing the objectives of the PPP.
• Evidence from following up participants that the learning gained continues to contribute to their work and the work of their organisation/community
• Knowledge mobilisation infrastructures are self-sustaining with participants/organisations continuing to work together on change initiatives.