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
. 2020 Sep;29(9):746-755.
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010059. Epub 2019 Dec 11.

Logic model framework for considering the inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation-research partnership

Amir Alishahi Tabriz  1 , Susan A Flocke  2   3 , Deirdre Shires  4 , Karen E Dyer  5 , Michelle Schreiber  6   7 , Jennifer Elston Lafata  8
Affiliations

Logic model framework for considering the inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation-research partnership

Amir Alishahi Tabriz et al. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Sep.

Abstract

Background: The published literature provides few insights regarding how to develop or consider the effects of knowledge co-production partnerships in the context of delivery system science.

Objective: To describe how a healthcare organisation-university-based research partnership was developed and used to design, develop and implement a practice-integrated decision support tool for patients with a physician recommendation for colorectal cancer screening.

Design: Instrumental case study.

Participants: Data were ascertained from project documentation records and semistructured questionnaires sent to 16 healthcare organisation leaders and staff, research investigators and research staff members.

Results: Using a logic model framework, we organised the key inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation-university-based research partnership. In addition to pragmatic researchers, partnership inputs included a healthcare organisation with a supportive practice environment and an executive-level project sponsor, a mid-level manager to serve as the organisational champion and continual access to organisational employees with relevant technical, policy and system/process knowledge. During programme design and implementation, partnership processes included using project team meetings, standing organisational meetings and one-on-one consultancies to provide platforms for shared learning and problem solving. Decision-making responsibility was shared between the healthcare organisation and research team. We discuss the short-term outcomes of the partnership, including how the partnership affected the current research team's knowledge and health system initiatives.

Conclusion: Using a logic model framework, we have described how a healthcare organisation-university-based research team partnership was developed. Others interested in developing, implementing and evaluating knowledge co-production partnerships in the context of delivery system science projects can use the experiences to consider ways to develop, implement and evaluate similar co-production partnerships.

Keywords: delivery system science; health care stakeholder engagement; implementation science; knowledge co-production; quality improvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Delivery System Sciences Framework
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Email showed communications within a partnership
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. The lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30. - PubMed
    1. Grol R. Successes and failures In the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001;39(8):II-46–II-54. - PubMed
    1. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(1):114–31. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stacy R, Torrence WA, Mitchell CR. Perceptions of knowledge, beliefs, and barriers to colorectal cancer screening. J Cancer Educ. 2008;23(4):238–40. - PubMed
    1. Jimbo M, Rana GK, Hawley S, Holmes-Rovner M, Kelly-Blake K, Nease DE Jr, et al. What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening? CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(3):193–214. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types