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.
March 2022 (Volume 100)
Quarterly Article
Rowan G. M. Smeets
Dorijn F. L. Hertroijs
Ferdinand C. Mukumbang
Mariëlle E. A. L. Kroese
Dirk Ruwaard
Arianne M. J. Elissen
June 2024
June 2023
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
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.
Methods: An 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.
Findings: Separate 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.
Conclusions: Although 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.
Keywords: delivery of integrated health care, realist evaluation, program evaluation, primary health care.
Read on Wiley Online Library
