HeadlineEvaluating service innovations in health care and public health requires flexibility, collaboration and pragmatism; this collection identifies robust, innovative and mixed methods to inform such evaluations.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from the National Institute for Helath Research via http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hsdr0416

Barratt, Helen

Bevan, Gywn

Black, Nick

Boaden, Ruth

Bower, Peter

Campbell, Marion

Denis, Jean-Louis

Devers, Kelly

Dixon-Woods, Mary

Fallowfield, Lesley

Fitzpatrick, Ray

Forder, Julien

Foy, Robbie

Freemantle, Nick

Fulop, Naomi J

Gibbons, Elizabeth

Gillies, Clare

Goulding, Lucy

Grieve, Richard

Grimshaw, Jeremy

Howarth, Emma

Lilford, Richard J

McDonald, Ruth

Moore, Graham

Moore, Laurence

Newhouse, Robin

Or, Zeynep

O’Cathain, Alicia

Papoutsi, Chrysanthi

Prady, Stephanie

Raine, Rosalind

Rycroft-Malone, Jo

Sekhon, Jasjeet

Turner, Simon

Watson, Samuel I

Zwarenstein, Merrick

Policies and interventions in the health-care system may have a wide range of effects on multiple patient outcomes and operate through many clinical processes. This presents a challenge for their evaluation, especially when the effect on any one patient is small. In this essay, we explore the nature of the health-care system and discuss how the empirical evidence produced within it relates to the underlying processes governing patient outcomes. We argue for an evidence synthesis framework that first models the underlying phenomena common across different health-care settings and then makes inferences regarding these phenomena from data. Bayesian methods are recommended. We provide the examples of electronic prescribing and increased consultant provision at the weekend

Fulop, Naomi J.

Lilford, Richard J.

Moore, Laurence Anthony Russell

O'Cathain, Alicia

Watson, Samuel I.

Online Research @ Cardiff

Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health

Evaluating service innovations in health care and public health requires flexibility, collaboration and pragmatism; this collection identifies robust, innovative and mixed-methods to inform such evaluation

Oxford University Research Archive

Bevan, Gwyn

Watson, Simon I.

Enlighten

Raine, R

Fitzpatrick, R

Barratt, H

Bevan, G

Black, N

Boaden, R

Bower, P

Campbell, M

Denis, JL

Devers, K

Dixon-Woods, M

Fallowfield, L

Forder, J

Foy, R

Freemantle, N

Fulop, NJ

Gibbons, E

Gillies, C

Goulding, L

Grieve, R

Grimshaw, J

Howarth, E

Lilford, RJ

McDonald, R

Moore, G

Moore, L

Newhouse, R

O’Cathain, A

Or, Z

Papoutsi, C

Prady, S

Rycroft-Malone, J

Sekhon, J

Turner, S

Watson, SI

Zwarenstein, M

Oxford University Research Archive (ORA)

Health Services and Delivery Research

HeadlineEvaluating service innovations in health care and public health requires flexibility, collaboration and pragmatism; this collection identifies robust, innovative and mixed methods to inform such evaluations.</jats:p

Rosalind Raine

Ray Fitzpatrick

Helen Barratt

Gywn Bevan

Nick Black

Ruth Boaden

Peter Bower

Marion Campbell

Jean-Louis Denis

Kelly Devers

Mary Dixon-Woods

Lesley Fallowfield

Julien Forder

Robbie Foy

Nick Freemantle

Naomi J Fulop

Elizabeth Gibbons

Clare Gillies

Lucy Goulding

Richard Grieve

Jeremy Grimshaw

Emma Howarth

Richard J Lilford

Ruth McDonald

Graham Moore

Laurence Moore

Robin Newhouse

Alicia O’Cathain

Zeynep Or

Chrysanthi Papoutsi

Stephanie Prady

Jo Rycroft-Malone

Jasjeet Sekhon

Simon Turner

Samuel I Watson

Merrick Zwarenstein

Crossref

As the field of implementation science comprises a range of different ontological and disciplinary orientations, there is not always consensus on the boundaries of the research agenda or the challenges faced. Explicit discussion about the terminology used in the field would be useful to clarify differences in perspective and conceptual foundations. There is a need to generate an in-depth understanding of intervention design and development by considering the role of theory, the influence of context and meaningful involvement of relevant end-users. Theory-driven, pragmatic evaluation designs are proposed as a solution to produce evidence of intervention effects, and the potential of ‘implementation laboratories’ is also discussed. A balance has to be sought, however, between rigidly controlled studies and adaptive evaluations that allow emergent changes to the intervention or the implementation process through timely feedback. Practical recommendations would support the development of the field in evaluating the implementation of evidence-based practice

Black, Nck

Fullop, NJ

Lilford, R. J.

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository

Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health.

https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2004136

Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health

Abstract

Similar works

Full text