The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
June 2011 (Volume 89)
June 2011 | Mary Dixon-Woods, Charles L. Bosk, Emma Louise Aveling, Christine A. Goeschel, Peter J. Pronovost | Featured Article
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
Download the study
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 89, Issue 2 (pages 167–205)
Published in 2011
Assessing the Evaluability of Complex Public Health Interventions: Five Questions for Researchers, Funders, and Policymakers
In This Issue