{"id":440,"date":"2013-09-09T10:20:04","date_gmt":"2013-09-09T09:20:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/prop\/?page_id=440"},"modified":"2014-06-13T12:36:16","modified_gmt":"2014-06-13T11:36:16","slug":"contribution-analysis","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/prop\/contribution-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Contribution Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"

What is Contribution Analysis?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In order to understand the impact of the practitioner-research programme, we used an evaluation framework, based on, and adapted from Contribution Analysis (Mayne 2001, Morton 2012).\u00a0 This approach is useful because it acknowledges that there are many factors which influence change.\u00a0 Research on its own cannot cause change, but practitioner research, embedded within the complex world of health and social care can contribute to changes in awareness, capacity and practice.<\/p>\n

Contribution Analysis Reports<\/strong><\/p>\n

Summary Report:\u00a0Summary of Impact – PROP Contribution Stories <\/a><\/p>\n

Contribution Analysis Report 1<\/strong>: This report details the impacts of the PROP project on the practitioners and organisations involved. \u00a0It focuses on the activities we undertook to learn about and ‘do’ research as well the challenges and enablers we encountered along the way. \u00a0We suggest that taking part in PROP allowed practitioners to become ‘boundary-spanners’ between research and practice.<\/p>\n

Report available here: \u00a0PROP Pathway to Impact 1 – Becoming a Boundary Spanner<\/a><\/p>\n

Contribution Analysis Report 2:<\/strong> This report details the impact of the research evidence produced by practitioners and the outcome of their knowledge exchange activities. \u00a0Practitioners on PROP worked hard to make their research relevant to practice and people who access support. \u00a0This report outlines this work and the changes it made to the sector.<\/p>\n

Report available here:\u00a0PROP Pathway to Impact 2 – New Research Evidence<\/a><\/p>\n

A detailed outline of our theory of change<\/strong>, the indicators we used and a summary of our evidence can be found here:\u00a0PROP Detailed Theory of Change<\/a><\/p>\n

Using Contribution Analysis in the PROP Project<\/strong><\/p>\n

We used contribution analysis to evaluate the PROP (Practitioner-Research: Older People) project at two levels: (1) the practitioner-research programme and (2) its impact on the use of research evidence in policy and practice at local health and social care organisations.<\/p>\n

Our contribution story begins with the individual development of the practitioners involved in the research programme.\u00a0 This development of research skills and experience with research design and implementation provides practitioners with expertise as a \u2018researcher\u2019 as well as a \u2018practitioner\u2019.<\/p>\n

The second half of our contribution shows the use of practitioner-research to improve the use of evidence-based practice in partner organisations.\u00a0 The evidence produced through the practitioners\u2019 empirical research projects was shared amongst partner organisations and other stakeholders.\u00a0 The second part of our theory of change maps these processes of engagement and knowledge exchange to determine whether practitioner-led inquiry has an impact on the culture of research use in health and social care organisations.<\/p>\n

Methodology<\/h2>\n

We used a nested theory of change (Wimbush, Montague, Mulherin 2012) to show the two-stage process of our theory of change (see Appendix 1).\u00a0 The first stage of the process accounts for the practitioner-research programme and its impact on the practitioners involved, particularly the development of research skills and experience.\u00a0 The second stage accounts for the engagement and knowledge exchange activities which were used to share knowledge about the individual practitioner-research projects.\u00a0\u00a0 In this stage, we evaluate the impact of these research projects on the policy and practice of delivering services for older people and carers in the project\u2019s partner organisations (Alzheimer Scotland, Glasgow City Council, NHS Lothian, Midlothian Council, West Lothian Council and VOCAL).<\/p>\n

Each stage of the theory of change is based on Morton\u2019s (2012) results chain template which looks at the impact of research:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Inputs<\/li>\n
  2. Activities and Outputs<\/li>\n
  3. Engagement\/Involvement<\/li>\n
  4. Awareness\/Reaction<\/li>\n
  5. Change in capacity, knowledge or skills<\/li>\n
  6. Change in behaviour and practice<\/li>\n
  7. Impact<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Each stage in the results chain includes the assumptions and risks to the theory of change, as well as the pathway to impact, the indicators for impact and the evidence to be collected.\u00a0 We used this template to create a prospective theory of change at the beginning of the PROP project (June 2012).\u00a0 This was refined a three different points in the project (August 2012, November 2012 and January 2013) to include the iterative learning which occurred during the\u00a0project\u2019s activities.\u00a0A detailed outline can be found here:\u00a0PROP Detailed Theory of Change<\/a><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    What is Contribution Analysis? In order to understand the impact of the practitioner-research programme, we used an evaluation framework, based on, and adapted from Contribution Analysis (Mayne 2001, Morton 2012).\u00a0 This approach is useful because it acknowledges that there are many factors which influence change.\u00a0 Research on its own cannot cause change, but practitioner research, … Continue reading Contribution Analysis<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":47,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":11,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/prop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/440"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/prop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/prop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/prop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/47"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/prop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/prop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/prop\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}