Rights statement: The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Evaluation, 26 (1), 2020, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2020 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Evaluation page: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/evi on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/
Accepted author manuscript, 934 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A worked example of initial theory-building
T2 - PARTNERS2 collaborative care for people who have experienced psychosis in England
AU - Gwernan-Jones, R.
AU - Britten, N.
AU - Allard, J.
AU - Baker, E.
AU - Gill, L.
AU - Lloyd, H.
AU - Rawcliffe, T.
AU - Sayers, R.
AU - Plappert, H.
AU - Gibson, J.
AU - Clark, M.
AU - Birchwood, M.
AU - Pinfold, V.
AU - Reilly, S.
AU - Gask, L.
AU - Byng, R.
N1 - The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Evaluation, 26 (1), 2020, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2020 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Evaluation page: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/evi on SAGE Journals Online: http://journals.sagepub.com/
PY - 2020/1/1
Y1 - 2020/1/1
N2 - In this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.
AB - In this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.
KW - collaborative care
KW - complex interventions
KW - personal recovery
KW - programme theory development
KW - psychosis
KW - theory-driven evaluation
U2 - 10.1177/1356389019850199
DO - 10.1177/1356389019850199
M3 - Journal article
VL - 26
SP - 6
EP - 26
JO - Evaluation
JF - Evaluation
SN - 1356-3890
IS - 1
ER -