- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- Working Papers
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Reports
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Presentations by ILAC Team
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
Evaluating Complex, Collaborative Programmes: the Partnership Project as a case study
Sun, 08/31/2008 - 12:52 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
Journal ArticleSource:
Australian And New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 35, Number 5, p.639-646 (2001)URL:
https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:38241Keywords:
collaboration; Health; ILAC Newsletter; Integration; Mental Health; Mental-illness; partnership; Programme; Psychiatry; ServicesAbstract:
Objective: In Australia, mental health services are delivered by a complex web of public- and private-sector providers. There is a growing recognition that linkages between these groups are not optimal, and a concern that this may lead to poor outcomes. This paper illustrates a conceptual framework for developing, implementing and evaluating programmes concerned with linkages. Method-Drawing on theoretical and practical literature, this paper identifies different levels of integration, issues in evaluating programmes to address poor linkages, and features of useful evaluations. Within this context, it describes the method by which the Public and Private Partnerships in Mental Health Project (Partnership Project) is being evaluated. Conducted by St Vincent's Mental Health Service and The Melbourne Clinic, this is one of several Demonstration Projects in Integrated Mental Health Care funded under the National Mental Health Strategy. Results: Collaboration is hard to conceptualize and collaborative programmes usually have many players and components, and tend to operate within already-complex systems. This creates difficulties for evaluation, in terms of what to measure, how to measure it, and how to interpret findings. In spite of these difficulties, the illustrative example demonstrates a model for evaluating collaborative programmes that is currently working well because it is strongly conceptualized, descriptive, comparative, constructively sceptical, positioned from the bottom up, and collaborative. Conclusions: This model, or aspects of it, could be extended to the evaluation of other mental health programmes and services that have collaborative elements.
Sublibrary:
Partnership
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page