Demystifying impact evaluation: an impact evaluation framework.

Frontiers in epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-03-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fepid.2025.1460997
Janet Michel, Kimon Schneider
{"title":"Demystifying impact evaluation: an impact evaluation framework.","authors":"Janet Michel, Kimon Schneider","doi":"10.3389/fepid.2025.1460997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As the global financial, economic, social, environmental, political, technological and health crises deepen and become more complex, funders are increasingly eliciting for programs/research that demonstrate impact. A lot of evaluations often lack the methodological robustness to inform further action by failing to demonstrate the context mechanism and outcome pathways. The landscape is changing. The value of programs/interventions and research is increasingly coming under scrutiny. Impact evaluation is the process of determining to what extent observed changes in the outcome are attributable to the intervention. Figures alone cannot explain why things are that way, and stories alone cannot demonstrate who or how many people benefited and to what extent. Additional methodological tools, such as participatory methods, theories of change, and human centred designs citizen science and the engagement of all key stakeholders, including those previously known as beneficiaries is fundamental. This facilitates a better understanding of the problems while unraveling potential solutions, bearing in mind that any health system intervention can have positive, negative, intended, unintended, direct and indirect consequences. Transdisciplinary, multi and inter-disciplinary approaches and mixed methods therefore become indispensable. To that end we propose an impact evaluation framework with seven central tenets namely; Theory of change (TOC) or program theory, Stakeholder engagement including beneficiaries, Use of mixed method indicators, Baseline of outcome of interest, Midline assessment of outcome of interest, Endline assessment of outcome of interest and Validation/Co-creation.</p>","PeriodicalId":73083,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in epidemiology","volume":"5 ","pages":"1460997"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fepid.2025.1460997","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the global financial, economic, social, environmental, political, technological and health crises deepen and become more complex, funders are increasingly eliciting for programs/research that demonstrate impact. A lot of evaluations often lack the methodological robustness to inform further action by failing to demonstrate the context mechanism and outcome pathways. The landscape is changing. The value of programs/interventions and research is increasingly coming under scrutiny. Impact evaluation is the process of determining to what extent observed changes in the outcome are attributable to the intervention. Figures alone cannot explain why things are that way, and stories alone cannot demonstrate who or how many people benefited and to what extent. Additional methodological tools, such as participatory methods, theories of change, and human centred designs citizen science and the engagement of all key stakeholders, including those previously known as beneficiaries is fundamental. This facilitates a better understanding of the problems while unraveling potential solutions, bearing in mind that any health system intervention can have positive, negative, intended, unintended, direct and indirect consequences. Transdisciplinary, multi and inter-disciplinary approaches and mixed methods therefore become indispensable. To that end we propose an impact evaluation framework with seven central tenets namely; Theory of change (TOC) or program theory, Stakeholder engagement including beneficiaries, Use of mixed method indicators, Baseline of outcome of interest, Midline assessment of outcome of interest, Endline assessment of outcome of interest and Validation/Co-creation.

揭开影响评价的神秘面纱:一个影响评价框架。
随着全球金融,经济,社会,环境,政治,技术和健康危机的加深和变得更加复杂,资助者越来越多地吸引那些显示出影响的项目/研究。许多评估往往缺乏方法上的稳健性,无法证明环境机制和结果途径,从而无法为进一步的行动提供信息。形势正在发生变化。项目/干预和研究的价值正日益受到审查。影响评价是确定观察到的结果变化在多大程度上可归因于干预措施的过程。数字本身不能解释为什么事情是这样的,故事本身也不能证明谁或多少人受益,以及在多大程度上受益。其他的方法论工具,如参与式方法、变革理论和以人为本的设计,公民科学和所有关键利益相关者的参与,包括那些以前被称为受益者的人的参与,是至关重要的。这有助于更好地了解问题,同时揭示潜在的解决办法,同时铭记任何卫生系统干预都可能产生积极、消极、有意、意外、直接和间接的后果。因此,跨学科、多学科和跨学科的方法和混合方法变得必不可少。为此,我们提出一个影响评价框架,其核心原则为:变革理论(TOC)或项目理论,包括受益人在内的利益相关者参与,混合方法指标的使用,兴趣结果的基线,兴趣结果的中线评估,兴趣结果的终线评估和验证/共同创造。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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