Abstract
Building on the PIO MM single group before and after design, intervention effectiveness research, quality improvement activities, and program evaluation design strategies are addressed in this chapter, with examples of designs that may be constructed based on this fundamental meta-model. Such designs may build on any aspect of the model to show and relate multiple populations of interest, problems, and interventions, along with related contextual factors. Variations on the single group before and after design are presented with particular attention to details regarding use of observational datasets. The use of comparisons for population characteristics, interventions, and outcomes is described. Time as a property of the model and an aspect of data collection is discussed. The use of a mixed methods approach is suggested as a way of validating findings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Trochim WM. The research methods knowledge base, 2nd edn. [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 12]. Available from: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ (version current as of October 20, 2006).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [US] (1999) Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recomm Rep 48(RR11):1–40
Kernler D. Section 1.2: observational studies versus designed experiments [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 12]. Available from: https://faculty.elgin.edu/dkernler/statistics/ch01/1-2.html
Silverman B, Mai C, Boulet S, O’Leary L (2009) Logic models for planning and evaluation. The Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (DBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta GA
Hersh WR, Cimino J, Payne PR, Embi P, Logan J, Weiner M, Bernstam EV, Lehmann H, Hripcsak G, Hartzog T, Saltz J (2013) Recommendations for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. EGEMS 1(1)
Tukey JW (1977) Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Monsen KA, Peterson JJ, Mathiason MA, Kim E, Lee S, Chi CL, Pieczkiewicz DS (2015) Data visualization techniques to showcase nursing care quality. Comput Inf Nurs 33(10):417–426
Monsen KA, Brandt JK, Brueshoff B, Chi CL, Mathiason MA, Swenson SM, Thorson DR (2017) Social determinants and health disparities associated with outcomes of women of childbearing age who receive public health nurse home visiting services. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 46(2):292–303
Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big data – a revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. John Murray Publishers, London
Hey T, Tansley S, Tolle K (2009) The fourth paradigm: data intensive scientific discovery. Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA
Schneeweiss S (2014) Learning from big health care data. N Engl J Med 370(23):2161–2163
Aliferis CF, Statnikov A, Tsamardinos I, Mani S, Koutsoukos XD (2010) Local causal and markov blanket induction for causal discovery and feature selection for classification part i: algorithms and empirical evaluation. J Mach Learn Res 11(Jan):171–234
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. The science of improvement: how to improve [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 12]. Available from: http://www.ihi.org/resources/pages/howtoimprove/scienceofimprovementhowtoimprove.aspx
Rural Health Information Hub. Types of evaluation in health promotion and disease prevention programs [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 12]. Available from: https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/community-health/health-promotion/4/types-of-evaluation
World Health Organization (1998) Health promotion evaluation -recommendations to policy-makers. Report of the WHO European working group on health promotion evaluation. WHO, Copenhagen
Black N (1996) Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. Br Med J 312(7040):1215
Before-and-after design: A simple evaluation design [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 12]. Available from: http://158.132.155.107/posh97/private/research/evaluation/Chp_3.pdf
Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE, Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD (2001) Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 54(8):774–781
Paulus JK, Dahabreh IJ, Balk EM, Avendano EE, Lau J, Ip S (2014) Opportunities and challenges in using studies without a control group in comparative effectiveness reviews. Res Synth Methods 5(2):152–161
Krueger RA. Evaluation [Internet]. [cited 2017 May 12] Available from: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~rkrueger/evaluation.html
Erickson KJ, Monsen KA, Attleson IS, Radosevich DM, Oftedahl G, Neely C, Thorson DR (2015) Translation of obesity practice guidelines: measurement and evaluation. Public Health Nurs 32(3):222–231
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Monsen, K.A. (2018). Problem-Intervention-Outcome Meta-Model Project Design. In: Intervention Effectiveness Research: Quality Improvement and Program Evaluation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61246-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61246-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61245-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61246-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)