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
. 2023 Aug 29;4(1):106.
doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00468-6.

Participatory logic modeling in a multi-site initiative to advance implementation science

Affiliations

Participatory logic modeling in a multi-site initiative to advance implementation science

Douglas V Easterling et al. Implement Sci Commun. .

Abstract

Background: Logic models map the short-term and long-term outcomes that are expected to occur with a program, and thus are an essential tool for evaluation. Funding agencies, especially in the United States (US), have encouraged the use of logic models among their grantees. They also use logic models to clarify expectations for their own funding initiatives. It is increasingly recognized that logic models should be developed through a participatory approach which allows input from those who carry out the program being evaluated. While there are many positive examples of participatory logic modeling, funders have generally not engaged grantees in developing the logic model associated with their own initiatives. This article describes an instance where a US funder of a multi-site initiative fully engaged the funded organizations in developing the initiative logic model. The focus of the case study is Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3), a multi-year initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute.

Methods: The reflective case study was collectively constructed by representatives of the seven centers funded under ISC3. Members of the Cross-Center Evaluation (CCE) Work Group jointly articulated the process through which the logic model was developed and refined. Individual Work Group members contributed descriptions of how their respective centers reviewed and used the logic model. Cross-cutting themes and lessons emerged through CCE Work Group meetings and the writing process.

Results: The initial logic model for ISC3 changed in significant ways as a result of the input of the funded groups. Authentic participation in the development of the logic model led to strong buy-in among the centers, as evidenced by their utilization. The centers shifted both their evaluation design and their programmatic strategy to better accommodate the expectations reflected in the initiative logic model.

Conclusions: The ISC3 case study demonstrates how participatory logic modeling can be mutually beneficial to funders, grantees and evaluators of multi-site initiatives. Funded groups have important insights about what is feasible and what will be required to achieve the initiative's stated objectives. They can also help identify the contextual factors that either inhibit or facilitate success, which can then be incorporated into both the logic model and the evaluation design. In addition, when grantees co-develop the logic model, they have a better understanding and appreciation of the funder's expectations and thus are better positioned to meet those expectations.

Keywords: Engaging grantees, Implementation science for cancer control, Health equity; Logic models; Multi-site initiatives; Participatory evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ross Brownson and Russell Glasgow are members of the Editorial Board for the journal. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Original version of the ISC3 logic model
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Revised version of the ISC3 logic model, highlighting health equity components

Update of

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rush B, Ogborne A. Program logic models: expanding their role and structure for program planning and evaluation. Can J Program Eval. 1991;6(2):95. doi: 10.3138/cjpe.6.005. - DOI
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US) Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48(11):1–41. - PubMed
    1. Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. The implementation research logic model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):1–2. doi: 10.1186/s13012-020-01041-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sales AE, Barnaby DP, Rentes VC. Letter to the editor on “the implementation research logic model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects.” Implement Sci. 2021;16:1–3. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Czosnek L, Zopf EM, Cormie P, Rosenbaum S, Richards J, Rankin NM. Developing an implementation research logic model: using a multiple case study design to establish a worked exemplar. Implement Sci Commun. 2022;3(1):1–2. doi: 10.1186/s43058-022-00337-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources