Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40413502›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

Logic models for the evaluation of complex interventions in public health: lessons learnt from a staged development process.

Stephan Voss, Julia Bauer, Michaela Coenen, Caroline Jung-Sievers, Graham Moore, Eva Rehfuess

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Digital Health Innovation by Design: A Logic Model Scaffold for Rural, Regional, and Remote Settings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Stephan VossChair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. svoss@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2497-8065
Julia BauerChair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4634-5146
Michaela CoenenChair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7492-7907
Caroline Jung-SieversChair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2133-4766
Graham MooreCentre for Development, Evaluation, Complexity and Implementation in Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6136-3978
Eva RehfuessChair of Public Health and Health Services Research, Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology (IBE), Faculty of Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4318-8846

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLogic models are valuable tools when evaluating complex interventions in public health. They can improve the understanding of how an intervention works and interacts with its system, and facilitate clear communication regarding the intervention with stakeholders. There are different approaches to developing logic models. However, experiences with logic model development in practice, and the advantages or challenges associated with different approaches are rarely reported. This study describes and reflects on the staged development process of a logic model for the municipal public health intervention Präventionskette Freiham in Munich, Germany. Specifically, we aim to identify advantages and challenges associated with this process, and deduce lessons learnt for staged logic model development and logic model development in general.

methodsFor the staged logic model development process, a first draft of the logic model was developed at the start of the evaluation. We then defined a priori milestones at which the model was to be revised. It was revisited and updated: (i) after the process evaluation, (ii) after a workshop with stakeholders, and (iii) at the end of preparations for long-term outcome evaluation. We discussed the advantages and challenges associated with the staged development process in a workshop within the research team, and obtained feedback on the usefulness of the logic model during a workshop with municipal stakeholders.

resultsThe logic model changed in multiple aspects during the different stages of development, mostly due to evidence obtained during the evaluation and as a result of feedback from discussions within the research team and with stakeholders. In the workshop with the research team, we found the staged process to be useful for facilitating reflection, for increasing plannability of logic model development, for integrating multiple perspectives and for increasing the validity of the logic model. Challenges were the need for rigorous documentation and flexibility in the process, as well as the management of resources. In the stakeholder workshop on the usefulness of the logic model, participants stated that the graphical visualization made it easier to handle complexity, and wished for the logic model to be re-used for future interventions.

conclusionsDeveloping a logic model in a staged process over the course of the evaluation of an intervention is a useful approach for stimulating reflection and obtaining a more realistic depiction of the intervention.

Indexed as

LogicModels, TheoreticalProgram EvaluationPublic HealthGermanyHumansProgram DevelopmentComplex interventionEvaluationEvidence-based public healthLogic modelMunicipal health promotionTheory of change

Identifiers

PMID40413502
PMCPMC12102880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.