Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGwernan-Jones, R.
dc.contributor.authorBritten, N.
dc.contributor.authorAllard, J.
dc.contributor.authorBaker, E.
dc.contributor.authorGill, L.
dc.contributor.authorLloyd, H.
dc.contributor.authorRawcliffe, T.
dc.contributor.authorSayers, R.
dc.contributor.authorPlappert, H.
dc.contributor.authorGibson, J.
dc.contributor.authorClark, M.
dc.contributor.authorBirchwood, M.
dc.contributor.authorPinfold, V.
dc.contributor.authorReilly, Siobhan T.
dc.contributor.authorGask, L.
dc.contributor.authorByng, R.
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-29T17:00:37Z
dc.date.accessioned2021-08-19T11:42:33Z
dc.date.available2021-07-29T17:00:37Z
dc.date.available2021-08-19T11:42:33Z
dc.date.issued2020-01
dc.identifier.citationGwernan-Jones R, Britten N, Allard J et al (2020) A worked example of initial theory-building: PARTNERS2 collaborative care for people who have experienced psychosis in England. Evaluation. 26(1): 6-26.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10454/18578
dc.descriptionYesen_US
dc.description.abstractIn this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research was funded by a UK NIHR Programme Grant (RP-PG-0611- 20004) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula (NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula).en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.isreferencedbyhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1356389019850199en_US
dc.rights© 2019 The Authors. Reprinted by permission of SAGE Publications.en_US
dc.subjectCollaborative careen_US
dc.subjectComplex interventionsen_US
dc.subjectPersonal recoveryen_US
dc.subjectProgramme theory developmenten_US
dc.subjectPsychosisen_US
dc.subjectTheory-driven evaluationen_US
dc.titleA worked example of initial theory-building: PARTNERS2 collaborative care for people who have experienced psychosis in Englanden_US
dc.status.refereedYesen_US
dc.date.Accepted2019
dc.date.application2019-05-26
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.type.versionAccepted manuscripten_US
dc.date.updated2021-07-29T16:00:39Z
refterms.dateFOA2021-08-19T11:43:13Z
dc.openaccess.statusGreenen_US


Item file(s)

Thumbnail
Name:
Reilly_et_al_Evaluation.pdf
Size:
390.2Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record