A Logic Model Framework for Planning an International Refugee Health Research, Evaluation, and Ethics Committee

Abstract

Collaborative approaches to supporting the health of refugees and other newcomer populations in their resettlement country are needed to address the complex medical and social challenges they may experience after arrival. Refugee health professionals within the Society of Refugee Healthcare Providers (SRHP)—the largest medical society dedicated to refugee health in North America—have expressed interest in greater research collaborations across SRHP membership and a need for guidance in conducting ethical research on refugee health. This article describes a logic model framework for planning the SRHP Research, Evaluation, and Ethics Committee. A logic model was developed to outline the priorities, inputs, outputs, outcomes, assumptions, external factors, and evaluation plan for the committee. The short-term outcomes include (1) establish professional standards in refugee health research, (2) support evaluation of existing refugee health structures and programs, and (3) establish and disseminate an ethical framework for refugee health research. The SRHP Research, Evaluation, and Ethics Committee found the logic model to be an effective planning tool. The model presented here could support the planning of other research committees aimed at helping to achieve health equity for resettled refugee populations.

Challenges and strategies for implementers and evaluators working in conflict settings

“…CFIR could be used in collaboration with a logic model or integrated into existing logic models to make them less linear. For example, when creating a logic model framework for specific use in refugee settings, Payton et al (2022) added new components to account for a bi-directional relationship between contextual factors and short- and long-term outcomes. If evaluators have adequately assessed implementation, they may begin data collection with a clear sense of the methods and approaches that are both feasible and useful for answering the research question in their specific setting.…”

“…Though these guidelines call for a thorough examination of the context and triangulation of data sources, programs funded through these agencies tend to follow a linear style of evaluation, such as logic models (Makan-Lakha, 2016;OECD, 2012;USAID, 2021). While logic models are commonly used and are helpful for selecting indicators and thinking through theories of change (Brusset et al, 2016;Payton et al, 2022), they do not address the logistical or methodological challenges in these dynamic evaluation environments. Many gaps in humanitarian guidance exist, and there are inadequate resources available to address the challenges that evaluators face when working in conflict zones (Bakrania et al, 2021).…”