Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29500199›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Realist evaluation of a complex integrated care programme: protocol for a mixed methods study.

Milawaty Nurjono, Pami Shrestha, Alice Lee, Xin Ya Lim, Farah Shiraz, Shermin Tan, Shing Hei Wong, Kah Mun Foo, Thomas Wee, Sue-Anne Toh and 2 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Expanding the Focus of Occupational Safety and Health: Lessons from a Series of Linked Scientific Meetings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Milawaty NurjonoCentre for Health Services Research and Policy Research, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University Health System, Singapore.
Pami ShresthaRegional Health System Planning Office, National University Health System, Singapore.
Alice LeeRegional Health System Planning Office, National University Health System, Singapore.
Xin Ya LimCentre for Health Services Research and Policy Research, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University Health System, Singapore.
Farah ShirazRegional Health System Planning Office, National University Health System, Singapore.
Shermin TanRegional Health System Planning Office, National University Health System, Singapore.
Shing Hei WongRegional Health System Planning Office, National University Health System, Singapore.
Kah Mun FooRegional Health System Planning Office, National University Health System, Singapore.
Thomas WeeRegional Health System Planning Office, National University Health System, Singapore.
Sue-Anne TohRegional Health System Planning Office, National University Health System, Singapore.
Joanne YoongCentre for Health Services Research and Policy Research, Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University Health System, Singapore.
Hubertus Johannes Maria VrijhoefVrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe lack of understanding of how complex integrated care programmes achieve their outcomes due to the lack of acceptable methods leads to difficulties in the development, implementation, adaptation and scaling up of similar interventions. In this study, we evaluate an integrated care network, the National University Health System (NUHS) Regional Health System (RHS), consisting of acute hospitals, step down care, primary care providers, social services and community partners using a theory-driven realist evaluation approach. This study aims to examine how and for whom the NUHS-RHS works to improve healthcare utilisations, outcomes, care experiences and reduce healthcare costs. By using a realist approach that balances the needs of context-specific evaluation with international comparability, this study carries the potential to address current research gaps. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This evaluation will be conducted in three research phases: (1) development of initial programme theory (IPT) underlying the NUHS-RHS; (2) testing of programme theory using empirical data; and (3) refinement of IPT. IPT was elicited and developed through reviews of programme documents, informal discussions and in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders. Then, a convergent parallel mixed method study will be conducted to assess context (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) to test the IPT. Findings will then be analysed according to the realist evaluation formula of CMO in which findings on the context, mechanisms will be used to explain the outcomes. Finally, based on findings gathered, IPT will be refined to highlight how to improve the NUHS-RHS by detailing what works (outcome), as well as how (mechanisms) and under what conditions (context). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The National Healthcare Group, Singapore, Domain Specific Review Board reviewed and approved this study protocol. Study results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences and internally to NUHS-RHS and Ministry of Health, Singapore.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedGovernment ProgramsHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsProgram EvaluationResearch DesignSingaporeIntegrated CareMixed Methods EvaluationRealist Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID29500199
PMCPMC5855239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.