Evaluating Complex, Collaborative Programmes: The Partnership Project as a Case Study

Author:

Pirkis Jane1,Herrman Helen23,Schweitzer Isaac45,Yung Alison2,Grigg Margaret2,Burgess Philip6

Affiliation:

1. Program Evaluation Unit, Centre for Health Program Evaluation, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, PO Box 477, West Heidelberg, Victoria, 3081, Australia

2. St Vincent's Mental Health Service, Melbourne, Australia

3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne and Director

4. Mood Disorders Unit, The Melbourne Clinic, Melbourne, Australia

5. University of Melbourne

6. Mental Health Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Objective: In Australia, mental health services are delivered by a complex web of publicand 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.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3