Building a Logic Model to Foster Engagement and Learning Using the Case of a Province-Wide Multispecies Antimicrobial Use Monitoring System.

IF 3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Evaluation Review Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-08 DOI:10.1177/0193841X231198706
Antoine Boudreau LeBlanc, Aude Motulsky, Marie-Pierre Moreault, Man Qing Liang, Ida Ngueng Feze, Luc Des Côteaux
{"title":"Building a Logic Model to Foster Engagement and Learning Using the Case of a Province-Wide Multispecies Antimicrobial Use Monitoring System.","authors":"Antoine Boudreau LeBlanc, Aude Motulsky, Marie-Pierre Moreault, Man Qing Liang, Ida Ngueng Feze, Luc Des Côteaux","doi":"10.1177/0193841X231198706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Successfully designing and implementing a program is complex; it requires a reflexive balance between the available resources and the priorities of various stakeholders, both of which change over time. Logic models are theory-based evaluation approaches used to identify and address key challenges of a program. This article describes the process of building a logic model on advanced theories in complexity studies. The models aim to support a province-wide multispecies monitoring system of antimicrobial use (AMU), designed in collaboration with the animal health sector in Quebec (Canada). Based on a rigorous theoretical foundation, the logic model is built in three steps: (1) <i>mapping</i>, a narrative review of literature on similar programs in other jurisdictions; (2) <i>framing,</i> iterative consultations with project members to elaborate the logic model; (3) <i>shaping</i>, hypotheses based on the logic model. The model emerges from the reflexive balancing of current scientific knowledge and empirical insights to gather relevant information about stakeholders from interdisciplinary experts that led a 3-year consensus-building process within the community. Recognizing the challenge of unpacking theories for practical use, we illustrate how the process of an \"open\" logic model building could enable governance coordination in complex processes. Logic models are useful for evaluating public, private, and academic partnerships in One Health programs that characterize an adaptive governance process.</p>","PeriodicalId":47533,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Review","volume":" ","pages":"736-765"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11193913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X231198706","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Successfully designing and implementing a program is complex; it requires a reflexive balance between the available resources and the priorities of various stakeholders, both of which change over time. Logic models are theory-based evaluation approaches used to identify and address key challenges of a program. This article describes the process of building a logic model on advanced theories in complexity studies. The models aim to support a province-wide multispecies monitoring system of antimicrobial use (AMU), designed in collaboration with the animal health sector in Quebec (Canada). Based on a rigorous theoretical foundation, the logic model is built in three steps: (1) mapping, a narrative review of literature on similar programs in other jurisdictions; (2) framing, iterative consultations with project members to elaborate the logic model; (3) shaping, hypotheses based on the logic model. The model emerges from the reflexive balancing of current scientific knowledge and empirical insights to gather relevant information about stakeholders from interdisciplinary experts that led a 3-year consensus-building process within the community. Recognizing the challenge of unpacking theories for practical use, we illustrate how the process of an "open" logic model building could enable governance coordination in complex processes. Logic models are useful for evaluating public, private, and academic partnerships in One Health programs that characterize an adaptive governance process.

利用全省多物种抗菌药使用监测系统案例,建立促进参与和学习的逻辑模型。
成功设计和实施一项计划非常复杂;它需要在可用资源和各利益相关方的优先事项之间进行反思性平衡,而这两者都会随着时间的推移而发生变化。逻辑模型是一种基于理论的评估方法,用于识别和应对计划的关键挑战。本文介绍了在复杂性研究的先进理论基础上建立逻辑模型的过程。该模型旨在支持与加拿大魁北克省动物卫生部门合作设计的全省多物种抗菌药使用监测系统(AMU)。逻辑模型建立在严谨的理论基础之上,分为三个步骤:(1) 制图,对其他辖区类似计划的文献进行叙述性审查;(2) 构架,与项目成员反复磋商,以详细阐述逻辑模型;(3) 塑造,根据逻辑模型提出假设。该模型的产生源于对当前科学知识和经验见解的反思性平衡,从跨学科专家那里收集利益相关者的相关信息,并在社区内开展了为期 3 年的建立共识进程。我们认识到为实际使用拆解理论所面临的挑战,因此说明了 "开放式 "逻辑模型的构建过程如何能够在复杂的过程中实现治理协调。逻辑模型有助于评估 "一体健康 "计划中的公共、私营和学术合作伙伴关系,这些合作伙伴关系是适应性治理过程的特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evaluation Review
Evaluation Review SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Evaluation Review is the forum for researchers, planners, and policy makers engaged in the development, implementation, and utilization of studies aimed at the betterment of the human condition. The Editors invite submission of papers reporting the findings of evaluation studies in such fields as child development, health, education, income security, manpower, mental health, criminal justice, and the physical and social environments. In addition, Evaluation Review will contain articles on methodological developments, discussions of the state of the art, and commentaries on issues related to the application of research results. Special features will include periodic review essays, "research briefs", and "craft reports".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信