Developing logic models to inform public health policy outcome evaluation: an example from tobacco control.

evaluation logic models public health policy tobacco control

Journal

Journal of public health (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1741-3850
Titre abrégé: J Public Health (Oxf)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101188638

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 09 2021
Historique:
received: 22 10 2019
revised: 12 02 2020
accepted: 12 02 2020
pubmed: 7 3 2020
medline: 25 2 2023
entrez: 7 3 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The evaluation of large-scale public health policy interventions often relies on observational designs where attributing causality is challenging. Logic models-visual representations of an intervention's anticipated causal pathway-facilitate the analysis of the most relevant outcomes. We aimed to develop a set of logic models that could be widely used in tobacco policy evaluation. We developed an overarching logic model that reflected the broad categories of outcomes that would be expected following the implementation of tobacco control policies. We subsequently reviewed policy documents to identify the outcomes expected to result from the implementation of each policy and conducted a literature review of existing evaluations to identify further outcomes. The models were revised according to feedbacks from a range of stakeholders. The final models represented expected causal pathways for each policy. The models included short-term outcomes (such as policy awareness, compliance and social cognitive outcomes), intermediate outcomes (such as changes in smoking behaviour) and long-term outcomes (such as mortality, morbidity and health service usage). The use of logic models enables transparent and theory-based planning of evaluation analyses and should be encouraged in the evaluation of tobacco control policy, as well as other areas of public health.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The evaluation of large-scale public health policy interventions often relies on observational designs where attributing causality is challenging. Logic models-visual representations of an intervention's anticipated causal pathway-facilitate the analysis of the most relevant outcomes. We aimed to develop a set of logic models that could be widely used in tobacco policy evaluation.
METHODS
We developed an overarching logic model that reflected the broad categories of outcomes that would be expected following the implementation of tobacco control policies. We subsequently reviewed policy documents to identify the outcomes expected to result from the implementation of each policy and conducted a literature review of existing evaluations to identify further outcomes. The models were revised according to feedbacks from a range of stakeholders.
RESULTS
The final models represented expected causal pathways for each policy. The models included short-term outcomes (such as policy awareness, compliance and social cognitive outcomes), intermediate outcomes (such as changes in smoking behaviour) and long-term outcomes (such as mortality, morbidity and health service usage).
CONCLUSIONS
The use of logic models enables transparent and theory-based planning of evaluation analyses and should be encouraged in the evaluation of tobacco control policy, as well as other areas of public health.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32140716
pii: 5782249
doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdaa032
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

639-646

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

Tessa Langley (T)

Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK.
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK.
SPECTRUM Consortium, UK.

Duncan Gillespie (D)

UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK.
SPECTRUM Consortium, UK.
School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.

Sarah Lewis (S)

Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK.
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK.

Katie Eminson (K)

Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK.
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK.

Alan Brennan (A)

UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK.
SPECTRUM Consortium, UK.
School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK.

Graeme Docherty (G)

Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK.
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK.

Ben Young (B)

Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK.
UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH