The Impact of Ex-Post Legislative Evaluations in Healthcare: A Mixed Methods Realist Evaluation Study Protocol for Conducting Case Studies.

IF 3.9 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
International Journal of Qualitative Methods Pub Date : 2023-06-29 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/16094069231184126
Linda J Knap, Johan Legemaate, Roland D Friele
{"title":"The Impact of Ex-Post Legislative Evaluations in Healthcare: A Mixed Methods Realist Evaluation Study Protocol for Conducting Case Studies.","authors":"Linda J Knap, Johan Legemaate, Roland D Friele","doi":"10.1177/16094069231184126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent studies on the impact of ex-post legislative evaluations show that there are different types of impact and different factors that can influence it. These include the context of a legislative evaluation, research quality, and interactions between researchers and other actors within the evaluation process. However, thorough empirical research in this area is lacking. This warrants empirical research into the factors that influence the impact of ex-post legislative evaluations, so these insights can be used to increase the likelihood of ex-post legislative evaluations having an impact.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>In this protocol, we report on the realist evaluation methodology that will be used to evaluate the impact of three ex-post legislative evaluations in the Dutch healthcare sector. The mixed methods realist evaluation approach will facilitate this theory-driven, qualitative research. The study will consist of the following three steps: (1) Initial programme theory development, (2) theory validation, and (3) theory refinement. Knowledge from two scoping reviews conducted previously, and two subsequent expert meetings will form the basis for developing the initial programme theory. During this study, three case studies will be conducted, in which three individual ex-post legislative evaluations will be examined. Specificmethods for data collection will include: documentary review, observation, structured questionnaires and focus group discussions with purposefully identified key stakeholders. Using the framework approach, the data will be analysed thematically in a within-case analysis followed by a cross-case analysis.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This protocol provides insight into how the study will be conducted. As this study uses multiple qualitative researchmethods to answer one question, this protocol supports refining data collection procedures. Careful consideration of the approach beforehand can minimise pitfalls, reduce publication bias and improve reproducibility. The protocol therefore specifies how the research question will be answered in detail, and this provides solid guidance for the research process.</p>","PeriodicalId":48220,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7615325/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Qualitative Methods","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231184126","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Recent studies on the impact of ex-post legislative evaluations show that there are different types of impact and different factors that can influence it. These include the context of a legislative evaluation, research quality, and interactions between researchers and other actors within the evaluation process. However, thorough empirical research in this area is lacking. This warrants empirical research into the factors that influence the impact of ex-post legislative evaluations, so these insights can be used to increase the likelihood of ex-post legislative evaluations having an impact.

Methods and analysis: In this protocol, we report on the realist evaluation methodology that will be used to evaluate the impact of three ex-post legislative evaluations in the Dutch healthcare sector. The mixed methods realist evaluation approach will facilitate this theory-driven, qualitative research. The study will consist of the following three steps: (1) Initial programme theory development, (2) theory validation, and (3) theory refinement. Knowledge from two scoping reviews conducted previously, and two subsequent expert meetings will form the basis for developing the initial programme theory. During this study, three case studies will be conducted, in which three individual ex-post legislative evaluations will be examined. Specificmethods for data collection will include: documentary review, observation, structured questionnaires and focus group discussions with purposefully identified key stakeholders. Using the framework approach, the data will be analysed thematically in a within-case analysis followed by a cross-case analysis.

Discussion: This protocol provides insight into how the study will be conducted. As this study uses multiple qualitative researchmethods to answer one question, this protocol supports refining data collection procedures. Careful consideration of the approach beforehand can minimise pitfalls, reduce publication bias and improve reproducibility. The protocol therefore specifies how the research question will be answered in detail, and this provides solid guidance for the research process.

立法后评估对医疗保健的影响:进行案例研究的混合方法现实主义评估研究协议
背景:近年来对立法后评价影响的研究表明,影响类型不同,影响因素也不同。这些包括立法评估的背景、研究质量以及评估过程中研究人员和其他行为者之间的相互作用。然而,这方面的实证研究还不够深入。因此,有必要对影响立法后评价影响的因素进行实证研究,以便利用这些见解来增加立法后评价产生影响的可能性。方法和分析:在本议定书中,我们报告了现实主义评价方法,该方法将用于评价立法后对荷兰卫生保健部门的三次评价的影响。混合方法现实主义评价方法将促进这种理论驱动的定性研究。研究将包括以下三个步骤:(1)初步规划理论发展,(2)理论验证,(3)理论完善。以前进行的两次范围审查和随后的两次专家会议所获得的知识将构成制定初步方案理论的基础。在这项研究中,将进行三个个案研究,其中将审查三个单独的立法后评价。数据收集的具体方法将包括:文献审查、观察、结构化问卷调查和有目的地确定关键利益相关者的焦点小组讨论。使用框架方法,数据将在案例内分析中按主题进行分析,然后进行跨案例分析。讨论:该方案提供了如何进行研究的见解。由于本研究使用多种定性研究方法来回答一个问题,因此本协议支持改进数据收集程序。事先仔细考虑方法可以最大限度地减少陷阱,减少发表偏倚,提高可重复性。因此,该协议详细规定了如何回答研究问题,这为研究过程提供了坚实的指导。
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
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
International Journal of Qualitative Methods SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal Highlights Impact Factor: 5.4 Ranked 5/110 in Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary – SSCI Indexed In: Clarivate Analytics: Social Science Citation Index, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Scopus Launched In: 2002 Publication is subject to payment of an article processing charge (APC) Submit here International Journal of Qualitative Methods (IJQM) is a peer-reviewed open access journal which focuses on methodological advances, innovations, and insights in qualitative or mixed methods studies. Please see the Aims and Scope tab for further information.
×
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