IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v85y2021ics0149718921000057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using a logic model to develop an intervention for improving miscarriage care in the emergency department

Author

Listed:
  • Emond, Tina
  • Guillaumie, Laurence
  • de Montigny, Francine

Abstract

Miscarriage is the most common pregnancy-related complication and is frequently treated at the emergency department (ED). Parents have expressed dissatisfaction with the care they received at the ED and few interventions have been developed for improving miscarriage care. When planning an intervention, it is crucial to develop a program theory specifying what must be done for an intervention to achieve its objectives. The purpose of this paper is to describe the logic model process for developing an intervention intended to improve parents’ miscarriage experience at the ED. The six steps of W. K. Kellogg Foundation (2004) theory logic model were used to 1) describe the problem; 2) conduct a needs assessment; and to identify 3) expected results, 4) influential factors, 5) intervention strategies, and 6) assumptions related to change strategies. A community-based participatory approach was used. It included two planning groups: parents who had visited the ED for a miscarriage (N = 9) and health professionals (N = 8). The theory logic model provided a rigorous framework for intervention development based on theories, scientific evidence, and the experiences of parents and health professionals. Detailed description of the intervention should facilitate its implementation, evaluation, and replication for other health problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Emond, Tina & Guillaumie, Laurence & de Montigny, Francine, 2021. "Using a logic model to develop an intervention for improving miscarriage care in the emergency department," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:85:y:2021:i:c:s0149718921000057
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101910
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718921000057
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101910?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaplan, Sue A. & Garrett, Katherine E., 2005. "The use of logic models by community-based initiatives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 167-172, May.
    2. Israel, B.A. & Coombe, C.M. & Cheezum, R.R. & Schulz, A.J. & McGranaghan, R.J. & Lichtenstein, R. & Reyes, A.G. & Clement, J. & Burris, A., 2010. "Community-based participatory research: A capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(11), pages 2094-2102.
    3. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    4. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    5. Gervais, Christine & de Montigny, Francine & Lacharité, Carl & Dubeau, Diane, 2015. "The Father Friendly Initiative within Families: Using a logic model to develop program theory for a father support program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 133-141.
    6. Susan Clark & Richard Wallace, 2015. "Integration and interdisciplinarity: concepts, frameworks, and education," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 233-255, June.
    7. Tina Emond & Francine de Montigny & Laurence Guillaumie, 2019. "Exploring the needs of parents who experience miscarriage in the emergency department: A qualitative study with parents and nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1952-1965, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. O'Keefe, Christine M. & Head, Richard J., 2011. "Application of logic models in a large scientific research program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 174-184, August.
    2. Cumming, Jennifer & Whiting, Richard & Parry, Benjamin J. & Clarke, Fiona J. & Holland, Mark J.G. & Cooley, Sam J. & Quinton, Mary L., 2022. "The My Strengths Training for Life™ program: Rationale, logic model, and description of a strengths-based intervention for young people experiencing homelessness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    3. Wagemakers, Annemarie & Vaandrager, Lenneke & Koelen, Maria A. & Saan, Hans & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Community health promotion: A framework to facilitate and evaluate supportive social environments for health," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 428-435, November.
    4. Scarinci, Isabel C. & Johnson, Rhoda E. & Hardy, Claudia & Marron, John & Partridge, Edward E., 2009. "Planning and implementation of a participatory evaluation strategy: A viable approach in the evaluation of community-based participatory programs addressing cancer disparities," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 221-228, August.
    5. Newton-Levinson, Anna & Higdon, Megan & Sales, Jessica & Gaydos, Laurie & Rochat, Roger, 2020. "Context matters: Using mixed methods timelines to provide an accessible and integrated visual for complex program evaluation data," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    6. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    7. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    8. Dana H. Z. Williamson & Sheryl Good & Daphne Wilson & Na’Taki Osborne Jelks & Dayna A. Johnson & Kelli A. Komro & Michelle C. Kegler, 2023. "Using the Collaborative Problem-Solving Model: Findings from an Evaluation of U.S. EPA’s Environmental Justice Academy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-24, October.
    9. Monica Webb Hooper & Charlene Mitchell & Vanessa J. Marshall & Chesley Cheatham & Kristina Austin & Kimberly Sanders & Smitha Krishnamurthi & Lena L. Grafton, 2019. "Understanding Multilevel Factors Related to Urban Community Trust in Healthcare and Research," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    11. Britni L. Ayers & Rachel S. Purvis & Jennifer Callaghan-Koru & Sharon Reece & Sheena CarlLee & Nirvana Manning & Krista Langston & Sheldon Riklon & Pearl A. McElfish, 2023. "Marshallese Mothers’ and Marshallese Maternal Healthcare Providers’ Perspectives on Contraceptive Use and Reproductive Life Planning Practices and Influences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-14, February.
    12. Lisa M. Vaughn & MaryAnn Lohmueller, 2014. "Calling All Stakeholders," Evaluation Review, , vol. 38(4), pages 336-355, August.
    13. Kim, Hyerang & Shon, Soonyoung & Shin, Hyunsook, 2020. "Exploring the unmet needs for creating an enabling environment for nurturing care to promote migrant child health in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: A theory-guided community-based participatory action research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    14. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    15. Collins, Cyleste & Dolata, Jacqueline & Pike, Earl & Sehgal, Ashwini, 2023. "Increasing research capacity in community organizations: Findings from the Community Research Scholars Initiative," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. Brubacher, Laura Jane & Dewey, Cate E. & Cunsolo, Ashlee & Humphries, Sally & Healey Akearok, Gwen K. & Gong, Crystal & Harper, Sherilee L., 2020. "Mapping the maternal health research landscape in Nunavut: A systematic search & critical review of methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    17. Nicole Ackermann & Sarah Humble & Jacquelyn V. Coats & Carlette Lewis Rhone & Craig Schmid & Vetta Sanders Thompson & Kia L. Davis, 2023. "Community Research Fellows Training Program: Evaluation of a COVID-19-Precipitated Virtual Adaptation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-14, February.
    18. Francine de Montigny & Christine Gervais & Danaë Larivière‐Bastien & Diane Dubeau, 2020. "Assessing the impacts of an interdisciplinary programme supporting father involvement on professionals’ practices with fathers: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5-6), pages 1003-1016, March.
    19. William D. Barta & Deborah Shelton & Cheryl Cepelak & Colleen Gallagher, 2016. "Promoting a Sustainable Academic–Correctional Health Partnership: Lessons for Systemic Action Research," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 27-50, February.
    20. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.

    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:85:y:2021:i:c:s0149718921000057. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.