Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34812527›Full record

ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2022

First Things First: How to Elicit the Initial Program Theory for a Realist Evaluation of Complex Integrated Care Programs.

Rowan G M Smeets, Dorijn F L Hertroijs, Ferdinand C Mukumbang, Mariëlle E A L Kroese, Dirk Ruwaard, Arianne M J Elissen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Co-Designing Local Collaboration Between Social Services, Primary Healthcare, and the Third Sector-A Realist Process Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Telerehabilitation of patients with stroke: Initial program theories for successful implementation.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rowan G M SmeetsFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University.
Dorijn F L HertroijsFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University.
Ferdinand C MukumbangDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington.
Mariëlle E A L KroeseFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University.
Dirk RuwaardFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University.
Arianne M J ElissenFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Policy Points Realist evaluation (RE) is an emerging and promising research approach for evaluating integrated care, addressing what works, how, for whom, and in what circumstances. The rich philosophical foundation of RE, critical realism, can help to systematically unravel an integrated care program's initial theory prior to implementation, as a first step within RE. RE can be considered a robust methodological asset in integrated care research by facilitating a deeper level of insight into program functioning than traditional forms of evaluation do and by shaping a realist-informed monitoring and evaluation process. CONTEXT: The complexity of integrated care and the need for transferable evaluation insights ask for a suitable evaluation paradigm. Realist evaluation (RE), underpinned by the philosophy of critical realism, is a theory-driven approach that addresses what works, how, for whom, and in what circumstances. The current study illustrates the process needed for RE's first step: eliciting the initial program theory (IPT). The TARGET program, a Dutch primary care initiative to facilitate more integrated care for chronically ill patients, i.e., care that is efficient, tailored, and holistic,  was taken as a real-world case.

methodsAn RE approach informed the phased IPT elicitation: (1) identifying an abstract theory framework; (2) formulating the preliminary IPT, building on the abstract theory and informed by previous scientific studies that underpin TARGET; and (3) refining the preliminary IPT, informed by RE expert interviews (n = 7). An RE heuristic tool, specifying the interplay between intervention-context-actors-mechanisms-outcomes (ICAMO) and retroductive reasoning, was applied to synthesize the underlying theory of individual TARGET components into TARGET's IPT.

findingsSeparate but related IPTs were identified for the two main types of actors involved in TARGET: primary care professionals (PCPs) and patients. For both actors, two sorts of mechanisms are assumed to be activated by TARGET, which-via instrumental outcomes-contribute to long-term quadruple aim targets. The first is confidence to enhance PCPs' person-centered conversational skills and to increase patients' active engagement in TARGET. The second is mutual trust, between PCPs and patients and between PCPs and their network partners. A supportive context is assumed crucial for activating these mechanisms-for example, sufficient resources to invest in integrated care.

conclusionsAlthough the IPT elicitation process is time intensive and requires a mind shift, it facilitates a deeper insight into program functioning than accommodated by the prevailing experimental designs in integrated care. Furthermore, the design of a realist-informed evaluation process can be informed by the IPT.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedResearch DesignCommunicationHumansProgram Evaluationdelivery of integrated health careprimary health careprogram evaluationrealist evaluation

Identifiers

PMID34812527
PMCPMC8932628

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.