Table 1 Logic Model of NIHR CLAHRC NWC Partners’ Priority Programme (PPP) for Cohorts One and Two
INPUTS | OUTPUTS | OUTCOMES | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACTIVITIES | PARTICIPANTS | INTERMEDIATE | ULTIMATE | ||
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. | |||