The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
June 2011 (Volume 89)
Quarterly Article
Mary Dixon-Woods
Charles L. Bosk
Emma Louise Aveling
Christine A. Goeschel
Peter J. Pronovost
December 2024
Dec 19, 2024
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Context: Understanding how and why programs work-not simply whether they work-is crucial. Good theory is indispensable to advancing the science of improvement. We argue for the usefulness of ex post theorization of programs. Methods: We propose an approach, located within the broad family of theory-oriented methods, for developing ex post theories of interventional programs. We use this approach to develop an ex post theory of the Michigan Intensive Care Unit (ICU) project, which attracted international attention by successfully reducing rates of central venous catheter bloodstream infections (CVC-BSIs). The procedure used to develop the ex post theory was (1) identify program leaders’ initial theory of change and learning from running the program; (2) enhance this with new information in the form of theoretical contributions from social scientists; (3) synthesize prior and new information to produce an updated theory. Findings: The Michigan project achieved its effects by (1) generating isomorphic pressures for ICUs to join the program and conform to its requirements; (2) creating a densely networked community with strong horizontal links that exerted normative pressures on members; (3) reframing CVC-BSIs as a social problem and addressing it through a professional movement combining “grassroots” features with a vertically integrating program structure; (4) using several interventions that functioned in different ways to shape a culture of commitment to doing better in practice; (5) harnessing data on infection rates as a disciplinary force; and (6) using “hard edges.” Conclusions: Updating program theory in the light of experience from program implementation is essential to improving programs’ generalizability and transferability, although it is not a substitute for concurrent evaluative fieldwork. Future iterations of programs based on the Michigan project, and improvement science more generally, may benefit from the updated theory present here.
Author(s): Mary Dixon-Woods; Charles L. Bosk; Emma Louise Aveling; Christine A. Goeschel; Peter J . Pronovost
Keywords: patient safety; quality improvement; evaluation science; program theory; health care–acquired infections
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 89, Issue 2 (pages 167–205) DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00625.x Published in 2011