Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30928966›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Protocol for a mixed methods realist evaluation of regional District Health Board groupings in New Zealand.

Tim Stokes, Carol Atmore, Erin Penno, Lauralie Richard, Emma Wyeth, Rosalina Richards, Fiona Doolan-Noble, Andrew R Gray, Trudy Sullivan, Robin Gauld

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Health and Social Care Reform in Scotland - What Next?International journal of integrated care
    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

10 authors.

Tim StokesDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-1127-1952
Carol AtmoreDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Erin PennoDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Lauralie RichardDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Emma WyethNgāi Tahu Māori Health Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Rosalina RichardsVa'a o Tautai, Centre for Pacific Health, Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Fiona Doolan-NobleDepartment of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Andrew R GrayBiostatistics Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Trudy SullivanDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Robin GauldOtago Business School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAchieving effective integration of healthcare across primary, secondary and tertiary care is a key goal of the New Zealand (NZ) Health Strategy. NZ's regional District Health Board (DHB) groupings are fundamental to delivering integration, bringing the country's 20 DHBs together into four groups to collaboratively plan, fund and deliver health services within their defined geographical regions. This research aims to examine how, for whom and in what circumstances the regional DHB groupings work to improve health service integration, healthcare quality, health outcomes and health equity, particularly for Māori and Pacific peoples. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research uses a mixed methods realist evaluation design. It comprises three linked studies: (1) formulating initial programme theory (IPT) through developing programme logic models to describe regional DHB working; (2) empirically testing IPT through both a qualitative process evaluation of regional DHB working using a case study design; and (3) a quantitative analysis of the impact that DHB regional groupings may have on service integration, health outcomes, health equity and costs. The findings of these three studies will allow refinement of the IPT and should lead to a programme theory which will explain how, for whom and in what circumstances regional DHB groupings improve service integration, health outcomes and health equity in NZ. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Otago Human Ethics Committee has approved this study. The embedding of a clinician researcher within a participating regional DHB grouping has facilitated research coproduction, the research has been jointly conceived and designed and will be jointly evaluated and disseminated by researchers and practitioners. Uptake of the research findings by other key groups including policymakers, Māori providers and communities and Pacific providers and communities will be supported through key strategic relationships and dissemination activities. Academic dissemination will occur through publication and conference presentations.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedGoverning BoardHumansNew ZealandProgram Evaluationhealth policyorganisation of health servicesrealist evaluation

Identifiers

PMID30928966
PMCPMC6477391

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.