Cited by 33Evaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Policy Implementation SciencePublic Health Policies and Education

Using theory-based evaluation to build evidence-based health and social care policy and practice

Bonner, Lesley·2003·Critical Public Health

Abstract

Building an evidence base to underpin policy and practice in health and social care is one of the cornerstones of New Labour's modernization programme. However, the history of evaluation research in Britain and America suggests that this enterprise may be thwarted as much by politics as by methodological debates. The 'paradigm wars' that characterize the social sciences also feature in the field of evaluation research, and changes in the way 'health' is conceptualized in the 'new public health' have intensified debates about approaches to evaluation and what counts as evidence. Health Action Zones have been vaunted as both the 'flagships' of the government's health policy and as 'learning initiatives'. This paper uses the example of Health Action Zones to discuss the use of a theory-based approach to evaluation for the purpose of generating the policy learning needed to tackle health inequalities, drawing on experience in Plymouth. The limitations of the 'traditional' approach to evaluation are examined, along with recent guidance from the Medical Research Council about evaluating complex community initiatives. It is argued that the case for theory-based evaluation extends beyond criticism of the traditional approach to develop evaluation theory and practice from the perspective of critical realism. This approach to evaluation seeks explanation and understanding about how and why projects 'work' or not in specific contexts, rather than pragmatic solutions to de-contextualized problems. The paper concludes by reflecting on the politics of evaluation in the field of health and social care, calling into question the government's commitment to evidence-based policy and practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0958159031000100224

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 14 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bonner, L.
Corresponding author
Bonner, Lesley
Venue
Critical Public Health
Published
2003-03
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
77-92
ISSN
  • 0958-1596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-3682
OpenAlex
W2030076762
Cited by
33
References
14
Citations by year
2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Critical Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • University of Huddersfield Repository (University of Huddersfield) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
Keywords
theory-based evaluation, evidence-based policy, health and social care policy, Health Action Zones, health disparities, policy learning, critical realism, paradigm wars, politics of evaluation, New Labour health policy, Plymouth

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review