Solving Methodological Challenges Using a Theory-driven Evaluation in the Study of Complex Patient Care

Abstract

This article draws on two research designs, which were used in a study of the palliative management of malignant wounds, to demonstrate the inherent challenges in producing generalizable knowledge from a complex subject. The designs included quasi-experimentation and a form of theory- driven evaluation. The focus of the study was the performance of dressings to reduce the impact of the wounds on daily life. The convention for evaluating the outcomes of interventions is a controlled study design. This approach is considered the valid way of producing evidence that is generalizable. An experimental design was therefore adopted to conduct a series of n = 1 quasi-experiments on wound dressing performance with qualitative methods to explore individual experiences. Problems with the methods, in particular the failure to capture complex inter-relationships between clinical problems and patient experiences, forced the researcher to abandon the experimental design. An alternative approach to measurement was adopted to maintain the study focus, the TELER® system of treatment evaluation, which includes indicators of patient-centred outcomes of care. The philosophical position of the study was reviewed. Consensus emerged as an unalterable, major in uence on the design and paradigmatic assumptions of the study. A `system of reasoning' was adopted to overcome the inherent relativist position of knowledge derived from this approach. The system abstracts general issues from case study data to construct theoretical explanations that may be consistent with, or challenge, current knowledge. This article is based on the evolution of one particular study. However, it makes a more general contribution to evaluation research by explaining the rationale for a form of theory-driven evaluation that uses evidence, reason and theory to develop generalizable explanations from complex, individual case study data. The methodology is proposed for other complex situations where speci c and rigorous evidence, capable of generalization is needed.

How Do You Modernize a Health Service? A Realist Evaluation of Whole‐Scale Transformation in London

“…Even though the appetite for approaches like realist evaluation is strong, there currently are very few worked examples of large‐scale change programs applied to health care. In a search of the Medline‐indexed literature, we found only one empirical study of the use of the realist method (Ssengooba et al 2007), although a wider search of nursing and social science databases turned up several more (Barnes, Matka, and Sullivan 2003; Byng, Norman, and Redfern 2005; Evans and Killoran 2000; Grocott, Cowley, and Richardson 2002). We therefore were conscious from the outset that our study offered an opportunity to ask both methodological and empirical questions.…”

Is realist evaluation keeping its promise? A review of published empirical studies in the field of health systems research

“…Theory-driven evaluation is increasingly undertaken in healthcare research. For example, the comprehensive review by Coryn et al (2011) includes empirical research based on theory-driven evaluation in social sciences, education, medicine and healthcare, while other examples were published by Grocott et al (2002), Mercier et al (2000), Rodriguez and Mead (1997) and Sidani et al (2004).…”

A systematic review of the effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy in the management of diabetes foot ulcers

“…use of antibiotics) or hospital admission. An alternative approach would be to follow the methods used in other complex wounds such as fungating breast lesions where measurement has focussed on the singular (progress/success in the context of the case) rather than the general (25).…”