Developing an Initial Program Theory to Explain How Patient-Reported Outcomes Are Used in Health Care Settings
Methodological Process and Lessons Learned
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2410877 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rachel Flynn (0000-0003-2980-7441), Kara Schick-Makaroff, Kara Schick‐makaroff (0000-0001-6200-3416), Adrienne Levay, Joanne Greenhalgh (0000-0003-2189-8879) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Publication date | 2020-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Qualitative Methods (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1609-4069 • E-ISSN: 1609-4069 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1609406920916299 |
| OpenAlex | W3015702580 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 41 |
A central aspect of any theory-driven realist investigation (synthesis or evaluation) is to develop an initial program theory (IPT). An IPT can be used to frame and understand how, for whom, why, and under what contexts complex interventions work or not. Despite well-established evidence that IPTs are a central aspect to any realist investigation, there is wide variation and a lack of methodological discussion on how to develop an IPT. In this article, we present the approach that we used to develop an IPT of how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in health care settings. Specifically, we completed a systematic review to extract tacit theories reported in the literature. The benefit of this approach was that it provided a rigorous review of the literature in the development of IPTs. The challenges included (1) rediscovering what is already well established in the theoretical literature, (2) generating an overabundance of partial candidate theories, and (3) extensive use of time and resources for what was the first stage to our larger funded research study. Our recommendations to other scholars considering this approach are to ensure that they (1) live within their means and (2) narrow the scope of the research question and/or develop a conceptual framework using middle-range theories. These methodological insights are highly relevant to researchers embarking on a realist investigation, tasked with developing an IPT
Conceptual framework · Development theory · Engineering ethics · Epistemology · Health care · Management science · MEDLINE · Political science · Process (computing · Psychological intervention · Scope (computer science · Social science · Sociology · Systematic review · Computer Science · Engineering · Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes · Health Policy Implementation Science · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology
Building Initial Programme Theory With Global Stakeholders
Bringing Together Linked Coding and Realist Thematic Analysis
Community arts, identity and recovery
Advancing Social Intervention Research Through Program Theory Reconstruction
Developing the Initial Programme Theories on Health Research Capacity Strengthening of African Universities
Evidence-based Policy
Measuring Quality of Life in Routine Oncology Practice Improves Communication and Patient Well-Being
Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions
Isoqol recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research
A conceptual framework for patient–provider communication
Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice
Application of validity theory and methodology to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
Patient reported outcome measures
The applications of PROs in clinical practice
Taking PROs and patient-centered care seriously
Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management
Evidence-based Policy
A realist diagnostic workshop
The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice
Building Realist Program Theory for Large Complex and Messy Interventions
| Citations per year | 1.67 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Highly cited | No |