Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Nov 17;10(11):e0142187.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142187. eCollection 2015.

Developing and Optimising the Use of Logic Models in Systematic Reviews: Exploring Practice and Good Practice in the Use of Programme Theory in Reviews

Dylan Kneale  1 , James Thomas  1 , Katherine Harris  2
Affiliations

Developing and Optimising the Use of Logic Models in Systematic Reviews: Exploring Practice and Good Practice in the Use of Programme Theory in Reviews

Dylan Kneale et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Logic models are becoming an increasingly common feature of systematic reviews, as is the use of programme theory more generally in systematic reviewing. Logic models offer a framework to help reviewers to 'think' conceptually at various points during the review, and can be a useful tool in defining study inclusion and exclusion criteria, guiding the search strategy, identifying relevant outcomes, identifying mediating and moderating factors, and communicating review findings.

Methods and findings: In this paper we critique the use of logic models in systematic reviews and protocols drawn from two databases representing reviews of health interventions and international development interventions. Programme theory featured only in a minority of the reviews and protocols included. Despite drawing from different disciplinary traditions, reviews and protocols from both sources shared several limitations in their use of logic models and theories of change, and these were used almost unanimously to solely depict pictorially the way in which the intervention worked. Logic models and theories of change were consequently rarely used to communicate the findings of the review.

Conclusions: Logic models have the potential to be an aid integral throughout the systematic reviewing process. The absence of good practice around their use and development may be one reason for the apparent limited utility of logic models in many existing systematic reviews. These concerns are addressed in the second half of this paper, where we offer a set of principles in the use of logic models and an example of how we constructed a logic model for a review of school-based asthma interventions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. First iteration of Logic Model (developed by one review team member).
Fig 2
Fig 2. Second iteration of Logic Model (developed by two review team members).
Fig 3
Fig 3. Third iteration of Logic Model (agreed by review team).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Smith R. Measuring the social impact of research: difficult but necessary. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2001;323(7312):528 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Higgins PAT, Chan K, Porder S. Bridge over a philosophical divide. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2006;2(2):249–55.
    1. Williams G. The disciplining effects of impact evaluation practices: negotiating the pressures of impact within an ESRC-DFID project. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 2012;37(4):489–95.
    1. Pettigrew AM. Scholarship with impact. British Journal of Management. 2011;22(3):347–54.
    1. Oakley A, Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. The politics of evidence and methodology: lessons from the EPPI-Centre. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice. 2005;1(1):5–32.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources