IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v36y2013i1p177-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The case for including reach as a key element of program theory

Author

Listed:
  • Montague, Steve
  • Porteous, Nancy L.

Abstract

This paper suggests that there is a need to build reach in the logic models and results frameworks of public health initiatives. A lack of explicit thinking about reach in logic models can lead to problems such as narrow/constricted understanding of impacts chain, favoring of ‘narrow and efficient’ initiatives over ‘wide and engaging’ initiatives and biased thinking against equity considerations. An alternative approach described in this paper that explicitly considers reach demonstrates that an explicit description of reach in program theory and results logic depictions can improve equity in health and social systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Montague, Steve & Porteous, Nancy L., 2013. "The case for including reach as a key element of program theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 177-183.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:36:y:2013:i:1:p:177-183
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718912000249
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Felicia Hurwitz & Andrew Burwick, "undated". "Using Logic Models to Guide the Planning and Evaluation of Complex Initiatives," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 878eaa9c1a984d1487379a588, Mathematica Policy Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:36:y:2013:i:1:p:177-183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.