Skip to main content

Table 1 The logic model illustrating how the reform was realized in practice

From: What happened and why? A programme theory-based qualitative evaluation of a healthcare-academia partnership reform in primary care

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes
Definition: Resources provided to achieve the reform activities but not previously available for this purpose Definition: Activities, not done before, to achieve reform outputs and outcomes Definition: Direct products of the reform’s activities that otherwise would not have happened Definition: Actual benefits – or potential disadvantages – resulting from the reform activities and outputs
*) Steering document clarifying the mandates
*) The project group, the steering committee, and the reference group not mentioned as influential
*) Research and educational competencies not present to the extent that was intended
Resources for coordinators and clinical lecturers
Start-up funding (e.g., for targeted ventures and learning environments)
***) Lack of prerequisites (e.g., time, competence, and facilities) to be able to combine engagement in research, education, and professional development with delivery of care services
Establishment of eight coordinating centres
Establishment of eight networks
Extended mandate to the managers of the coordinating centres
Establishment of eight coordinators for the centres
Establishment of coordination of clinical lecturers
***) Lack of a systems perspective parallel to local APHN development
Students’ clinical training: Improved coordination and structure, improved competencies (e.g., increased number of trained supervisors), more students, improved learning environments (e.g., educational settings, establishment of practices managed by students)
*) Attempts were made to increase students’ inter professional training, but there were difficulties in establishing continued systematic approaches
Continuous professional development (CPD): More opportunities and activities
Research: *) Research projects with connection to primary care were initiated but difficult to run in practice, although some practitioners did become engaged in the research
Other: *) Networks were established but had few activities; some collaboration was established with actors outside the primary care organisation (e.g., social services); **) increased collaboration with actors outside the primary care organisation (e.g., research collaborations, introduction of technical developments), and further specification of the local profiles at the centres
Increased dialogue about improvement of care quality and the use of evidence-based interventions, although in its early stages
More positive attitudes towards students and research in primary care
**) Increased workload (e.g., more tasks and time-consuming activities)
Improved job satisfaction and chances to recruit and keep staff (e.g., job variation, confidence in supervising roles, increased personal development and competence)
  1. Regular text indicates the changes that were described in the preliminary logic model and also realized in practice; text noted *) was described in the preliminary logic model but only to a limited degree realized in practice; text noted **) was not described in the preliminary logic model but was realized in practice; text noted ***) was not described in the preliminary logic model and was not put in place but was highly missed by the respondents