Contribution analysis is a structured approach to theory-based impact evaluation originally developed in Canada in the context of Results-Based Management (RBM) although there have been few examples of contribution analysis in practice since Mayne's original paper (2001). We argue that contribution analysis adds value to other theory-based evaluation approaches by providing a more structured and rigorous approach to participatory evaluation planning, data analysis and reporting. It can be applied in the context of participatory strategic planning and performance monitoring as well as impact evaluation. Examples are drawn from Scotland and Canada in the performance context of RBM in Canada and Outcomes-Based Accountability (OBA) in Scotland. The authors argue that, as a participatory process, contribution analysis strengthens both conceptual and practical understanding of planning/managing for outcomes and implementation and change theories, thus helping to build collaborative capacity within and across partner organizations. For public managers, the contribution analysis process has a strong appeal and practical value when faced with the task of demonstrating the contribution of single organizations to addressing complex social issues while working in partnership with other public agencies facing multiple accountabilities.
Workplaces are complex, dynamic spaces. While some practices are routine and highly predictable, informed by disciplinary and practical knowledge, others are unpredictable and emergent. Outcomes-based education, characterised by standardised, objective measurement of performance under controlled conditions, might be appropriate for routinised practice, but cannot account for emergent forms of professional knowledge. Somewhere between developing pre-specified, discipline-based skills and knowledge, and adapting to situated, contextualised conditions, there must be a capacity for dynamically developing unpredictable practices. This, we argue, should be an important focus of professional education across academic and practice settings. We interviewed 14 teachers and professionals studying part-time, across a range of disciplines, including medicine, architecture, law and allied health professions, about the alignment of learning within the workplace and university assessment. Using a sociomaterial lens, we offer a seamful account of educational and professional settings, manifested through assessment, regulatory bodies, technology and materials. Each seam represents ways of patching contexts together (e.g. accreditation stitches requirements of professional practice into educational approaches). Exposing such seams can reveal limitations and possibilities of classrooms and workplaces as sites of professional learning, whereas hiding the complexity of professional practice may be counterproductive to developing students' adaptive capacity to successfully negotiate practice settings.
ObjectivesTo explore the acceptability of regular asymptomatic testing for SARS-CoV-2 on a university campus using saliva sampling for PCR analysis and the barriers and facilitators to participation.DesignCross-sectional surveys and qualitative semistructured interviews.SettingEdinburgh, Scotland.ParticipantsUniversity staff and students who had registered for the testing programme (TestEd) and provided at least one sample.Results522 participants completed a pilot survey in April 2021 and 1750 completed the main survey (November 2021). 48 staff and students who consented to be contacted for interview took part in the qualitative research. Participants were positive about their experience with TestEd with 94% describing it as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Facilitators to participation included multiple testing sites on campus, ease of providing saliva samples compared with nasopharyngeal swabs, perceived accuracy compared with lateral flow devices (LFDs) and reassurance of test availability while working or studying on campus. Barriers included concerns about privacy while testing, time to and methods of receiving results compared with LFDs and concerns about insufficient uptake in the university community. There was little evidence that the availability of testing on campus changed the behaviour of participants during a period when COVID-19 restrictions were in place.ConclusionsThe provision of free asymptomatic testing for COVID-19 on a university campus was welcomed by participants and the use of saliva-based PCR testing was regarded as more comfortable and accurate than LFDs. Convenience is a key facilitator of participation in regular asymptomatic testing programmes. Availability of testing did not appear to undermine engagement with public health guidelines.
The involvement of citizens in the production and creation of public services has become a central tenet for administrations internationally. In Scotland, co-production has underpinned the integration of health and social care via the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. We report on a qualitative study that examined the experiences and perspectives of local and national leaders in Scotland on undertaking and sustaining co-production in public services. By adopting a meso and macro perspective, we interviewed senior planning officers from eight health and social care partnership areas in Scotland and key actors in national agencies. The findings suggest that an overly complex Scottish governance landscape undermines the sustainability of co-production efforts. As part of a COVID-19 recovery, both the implementation of meaningful co-production and coordinated leadership for health and social care in Scotland need to be addressed, as should the development of evaluation capacities of those working across health and social care boundaries so that co-production can be evaluated and report to inform the future of the integration agenda.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.