Easterling Douglas V, Jacob Rebekah R, Brownson Ross C, Haire-Joshu Debra, Gundersen Daniel A, Angier Heather, DeVoe Jennifer E, Likumahuwa-Ackman Sonja, Vu Thuy, Glasgow Russell E, Schnoll Robert
Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA.
Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus, Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Implement Sci Commun. 2023 Aug 29;4(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00468-6.
Logic models map the short-term and long-term outcomes that are expected to occur with a program, and thus are an essential tool for evaluation. Funding agencies, especially in the United States (US), have encouraged the use of logic models among their grantees. They also use logic models to clarify expectations for their own funding initiatives. It is increasingly recognized that logic models should be developed through a participatory approach which allows input from those who carry out the program being evaluated. While there are many positive examples of participatory logic modeling, funders have generally not engaged grantees in developing the logic model associated with their own initiatives. This article describes an instance where a US funder of a multi-site initiative fully engaged the funded organizations in developing the initiative logic model. The focus of the case study is Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC), a multi-year initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute.
The reflective case study was collectively constructed by representatives of the seven centers funded under ISC. Members of the Cross-Center Evaluation (CCE) Work Group jointly articulated the process through which the logic model was developed and refined. Individual Work Group members contributed descriptions of how their respective centers reviewed and used the logic model. Cross-cutting themes and lessons emerged through CCE Work Group meetings and the writing process.
The initial logic model for ISC changed in significant ways as a result of the input of the funded groups. Authentic participation in the development of the logic model led to strong buy-in among the centers, as evidenced by their utilization. The centers shifted both their evaluation design and their programmatic strategy to better accommodate the expectations reflected in the initiative logic model.
The ISC case study demonstrates how participatory logic modeling can be mutually beneficial to funders, grantees and evaluators of multi-site initiatives. Funded groups have important insights about what is feasible and what will be required to achieve the initiative's stated objectives. They can also help identify the contextual factors that either inhibit or facilitate success, which can then be incorporated into both the logic model and the evaluation design. In addition, when grantees co-develop the logic model, they have a better understanding and appreciation of the funder's expectations and thus are better positioned to meet those expectations.
逻辑模型描绘了一个项目预期会产生的短期和长期结果，因此是评估的重要工具。资助机构，尤其是美国的资助机构，鼓励受资助者使用逻辑模型。它们也使用逻辑模型来明确对自身资助项目的期望。人们越来越认识到，逻辑模型应通过参与式方法来制定，这种方法允许参与被评估项目实施的人员提供意见。虽然有许多参与式逻辑建模的积极范例，但资助者通常并未让受资助者参与制定与其自身项目相关的逻辑模型。本文描述了一个美国多地点项目资助者让受资助组织全面参与制定项目逻辑模型的实例。该案例研究的重点是癌症控制实施科学中心（ISC），这是一项由美国国立癌症研究所资助的多年期项目。
该反思性案例研究由ISC资助的七个中心的代表共同构建。跨中心评估（CCE）工作组的成员共同阐述了逻辑模型的开发和完善过程。工作组的个别成员描述了各自中心如何审查和使用逻辑模型。通过CCE工作组会议和撰写过程，出现了贯穿各领域的主题和经验教训。
由于受资助团体的意见输入，ISC的初始逻辑模型发生了重大变化。对逻辑模型开发的真正参与导致各中心的大力支持，这从它们的使用情况中得到了证明。各中心改变了评估设计和项目策略，以更好地符合项目逻辑模型中反映的期望。
ISC案例研究展示了参与式逻辑建模如何能对多地点项目的资助者、受资助者和评估者都产生互利的效果。受资助团体对哪些可行以及实现项目既定目标需要什么有重要见解。它们还能帮助识别抑制或促进成功的背景因素，然后这些因素可被纳入逻辑模型和评估设计中。此外，当受资助者共同开发逻辑模型时，他们能更好地理解和领会资助者的期望，从而更有能力满足这些期望。
