Anke Rohwer1, Lisa Pfadenhauer2, Jacob Burns2, Louise Brereton3, Ansgar Gerhardus4, Andrew Booth3, Wija Oortwijn5, Eva Rehfuess2. 1. Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377 Munich, Germany; Centre for Evidence-Based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Francie Van Zijl Drive, 7500 Parow, South Africa. Electronic address: arohwer@sun.ac.za. 2. Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377 Munich, Germany. 3. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK. 4. Department of Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Grazer Street 4, D-28359 Bremen, Germany. 5. Ecorys Nederland B.V., Watermanweg 44, 3067 GG Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and application of logic model templates for systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTAs) of complex interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study demonstrates the development of a method to conceptualize complexity and make underlying assumptions transparent. Examples from systematic reviews with specific relevance to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) illustrate its usefulness. RESULTS: Two distinct templates are presented: the system-based logic model, describing the system in which the interaction between participants, intervention, and context takes place; and the process-orientated logic model, which displays the processes and causal pathways that lead from the intervention to multiple outcomes. CONCLUSION: Logic models can help authors of systematic reviews and HTAs to explicitly address and make sense of complexity, adding value by achieving a better understanding of the interactions between the intervention, its implementation, and its multiple outcomes among a given population and context. They thus have the potential to help build systematic review capacity-in SSA and other LMICs-at an individual level, by equipping authors with a tool that facilitates the review process; and at a system-level, by improving communication between producers and potential users of research evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and application of logic model templates for systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTAs) of complex interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study demonstrates the development of a method to conceptualize complexity and make underlying assumptions transparent. Examples from systematic reviews with specific relevance to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) illustrate its usefulness. RESULTS: Two distinct templates are presented: the system-based logic model, describing the system in which the interaction between participants, intervention, and context takes place; and the process-orientated logic model, which displays the processes and causal pathways that lead from the intervention to multiple outcomes. CONCLUSION: Logic models can help authors of systematic reviews and HTAs to explicitly address and make sense of complexity, adding value by achieving a better understanding of the interactions between the intervention, its implementation, and its multiple outcomes among a given population and context. They thus have the potential to help build systematic review capacity-in SSA and other LMICs-at an individual level, by equipping authors with a tool that facilitates the review process; and at a system-level, by improving communication between producers and potential users of research evidence.
Authors: Jacob Burns; Hanna Boogaard; Stephanie Polus; Lisa M Pfadenhauer; Anke C Rohwer; Annemoon M van Erp; Ruth Turley; Eva Rehfuess Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-05-20
Authors: Lisa M Pfadenhauer; Ansgar Gerhardus; Kati Mozygemba; Kristin Bakke Lysdahl; Andrew Booth; Bjørn Hofmann; Philip Wahlster; Stephanie Polus; Jacob Burns; Louise Brereton; Eva Rehfuess Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Thomas Harder; Anja Takla; Tim Eckmanns; Simon Ellis; Frode Forland; Roberta James; Joerg J Meerpohl; Antony Morgan; Eva Rehfuess; Holger Schünemann; Teun Zuiderent-Jerak; Helena de Carvalho Gomes; Ole Wichmann Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2017-10