Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T09:28:20.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part VI: Interventional Research and the Disaster Logic Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2016

Marvin L. Birnbaum*
Affiliation:
Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Physiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin USA; Emeritus Editor-in-Chief, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
Elaine K. Daily
Affiliation:
Nursing Section Editor, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, Executive Secretary, World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin USA
Ann P. O’Rourke
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin USA
Jennifer Kushner
Affiliation:
Evaluation Specialist, Program Development and Evaluation, University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, Wisconsin USA
*
Correspondence: Marvin L. Birnbaum, MD, PhD 610 N. Whitney Way, Suite 407 Madison, Wisconsin 53705 USA E-mail: mbirnbaum@wadem.org

Abstract

Disaster-related interventions are actions or responses undertaken during any phase of a disaster to change the current status of an affected community or a Societal System. Interventional disaster research aims to evaluate the results of such interventions in order to develop standards and best practices in Disaster Health that can be applied to disaster risk reduction. Considering interventions as production functions (transformation processes) structures the analyses and cataloguing of interventions/responses that are implemented prior to, during, or following a disaster or other emergency. Since currently it is not possible to do randomized, controlled studies of disasters, in order to validate the derived standards and best practices, the results of the studies must be compared and synthesized with results from other studies (ie, systematic reviews). Such reviews will be facilitated by the selected studies being structured using accepted frameworks. A logic model is a graphic representation of the transformation processes of a program [project] that shows the intended relationships between investments and results. Logic models are used to describe a program and its theory of change, and they provide a method for the analyzing and evaluating interventions. The Disaster Logic Model (DLM) is an adaptation of a logic model used for the evaluation of educational programs and provides the structure required for the analysis of disaster-related interventions. It incorporates a(n): definition of the current functional status of a community or Societal System, identification of needs, definition of goals, selection of objectives, implementation of the intervention(s), and evaluation of the effects, outcomes, costs, and impacts of the interventions. It is useful for determining the value of an intervention and it also provides the structure for analyzing the processes used in providing the intervention according to the Relief/Recovery and Risk-Reduction Frameworks.

BirnbaumML, DailyEK, O’RourkeAP, KushnerJ. Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part VI: Interventional Research and the Disaster Logic Model. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(2):181–194.

Type
Special Reports
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Task Force for Quality Control of Disaster Medicine, World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine, Nordic Society for Disaster Medicine. Health Disaster Management Guidelines for Evaluation and Research in the Utstein Style. Sundnes KO, Birnbaum ML (eds). Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003;17(Supplement 3).

References

1. Emergency and Humanitarian Action, World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East Asia. Tsunami 2004: A Comprehensive Analysis. Au: Birnbaum ML, Kohl PA, Ofrin R, Daily EK. New Delhi, India: SEARO; 2013.Google Scholar
2. Adibhatia, S, Dudek, O, Ramsel-Miller, J, Birnbaum, ML. ID 599. Classification of Disaster Health publications. Presented at 19th World Congress on Disaster and Emergency Medicine, Cape Town, South Africa: April 2015. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(Suppl 1):s111.Google Scholar
3. Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC). Transformative Agenda. http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iasc/. Accessed February 21, 2013.Google Scholar
4. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.” In: UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, March 14-18, 2015: Sendai, Japan. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; Geneva, Switzerland: 2015.Google Scholar
5. Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary. Definition of “accountability.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability. Accessed July 18, 2014.Google Scholar
6. Pickett, JP. (ed). Definition of “evaluate.” The American Heritage College Dictionary. 4th ed. Boston, New York USA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002: 483.Google Scholar
7. Task Force for Quality Control of Disaster Medicine, World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine, Nordic Society for Disaster Medicine. Health Disaster Management Guidelines for Evaluation and Research in the Utstein Style. Sundnes KO, Birnbaum ML (eds). Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003;17(Supplement 3):103.Google Scholar
8. World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM), Task Force for Quality Control of Disaster Medicine (TFQCDM). Disaster medical response research: a template in the Utstein Style. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1996;11(2):16-24.Google Scholar
9. Overtveit, J. Evaluating Health Interventions: An Introduction to Evaluation of Health Treatments, Services, Policies and Organizational Interventions. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA: Open University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
10. Pfefferbaum, B, Noffinger, MA, Sherrib, K, Norris, FH. Framework for research on children’s reactions to disasters and terrorist events. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2012;27(6):567-576.Google Scholar
11. North, CS, Norris, FH. “Choosing methods to match research goals in studies of disasters or terrorism.” In: Methods for Disaster Mental Health Research. Norris FH, Galea S, Friedman MJ, Watson RL, (eds). New York USA: The Guilford Press; 2006: 45-61.Google Scholar
12. Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary. Definition of “performance.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/performance. Accessed April 2, 2015.Google Scholar
13. University of Wisconsin-Extension. Logic Model. http://www.uwex.edu/ ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html. Accessed February 28, 2013.Google Scholar
14. Cobb, CW, Douglas, PH. A theory of production. Am Economic Review. 1928;18:139-165.Google Scholar
15. Chambers, RG. Applied Production Analysis: A Dual Approach. New York USA: Cambridge University Press; 1989.Google Scholar
16. Bennett, C. Analyzing Impacts of Extension Programs ESC-575. Washington, DC USA: Extension Service-US Department of Agriculture; 1976.Google Scholar
17. Wholey, J. Evaluation: Promise and Performance. Washington, DC USA: Urban Institute Press; 1979: 4.Google Scholar
18. Bickman, L. “The Functions of Program Theory.” In: Using Program Theory in Evaluation. Bickman L (ed). New Directions for Program Evaluation. 1987;33:5-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Chen, H. Theory-driven Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, California USA: Sage Publications; 1990.Google Scholar
20. Funnell, S. “Developing and using a program theory matrix for program evaluation and performance monitoring.” In: Rogers P, Hacsi T, Petrosino A, Huebner T, (eds). Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities. New Directions for Evaluation. 2000;87:91-101.Google Scholar
21. Hatry, H. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC USA: Urban Institute Press; 1999.Google Scholar
22. Hernandez, M. Using logic models and program theory to build outcome accountability. Education & Treatment of Children. 2000;23(1):24-41.Google Scholar
23. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Logic Model Training for HUD SuperNOFA Grantees. PowerPoint presentation prepared for Satellite Broadcast; June 1, 2004. The Center for Applied Management, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania USA.Google Scholar
24. Kaplan, S, Garrett, K. The use of logic models by community-based initiatives. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2005;28(2):167-172.Google Scholar
25. McLaughlin, J, Jordan, G. Logic models: a tool for telling your program's performance story. Evaluating and Program Planning. 1999;2:65-72.Google Scholar
26. Reading, MA. Outcomes Based Evaluations Sing the Logic Model: Building Capacity of Substance Abuse Program Staff and Administrators to Develop and Utilize Science Based Prevention Interventions. CSAP/SAMHSA. March 2002.Google Scholar
27. Patton, M. Utilization-Focused Evaluation. 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, California USA: Sage Publications; 1997.Google Scholar
28. Pawson, R, Tilley, N. Realistic Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, California USA: Sage Publications; 1997.Google Scholar
29. Rogers, P. “Causal models in program theory evaluation.” In: Rogers P, Hacsi T, Petrosino A, Huebner T, (eds). Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities. San Francisco, California USA: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2000: 47-55.Google Scholar
30. Suchman, E. Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in Public Service and Social Action Programs. New York USA: Russell Sage Foundation; 1967.Google Scholar
31. Anderson, A. Using theory of change in program planning and evaluation. Aspen Institute. PowerPoint presentation at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Honolulu, Hawaii USA. 2000.Google Scholar
32. Taylor-Powell, E. Building Capacity in Evaluating Outcomes. Madison, Wisconsin USA: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension, Program Development and Evaluation; 2008. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande. Accessed April 9, 2013.Google Scholar
33. Taylor-Powell, E, Jones, AL, Henert, E. Enhancing Program Performance with Logic Models. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/lmcourse. Turner (1998) United Way of America (1999). Accessed April 8, 2013.Google Scholar
34. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension Program Development and Evaluation. Developing a Logic Model: Teaching and Training Guide. 2008. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmguidecomplete.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2013.Google Scholar
35. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action. A Logic Model Development Guide. http://www.wkkf.org/knowledge-center/resources/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide.aspx. Accessed February 26, 2013.Google Scholar
36. Birnbaum, ML, O’Rourke, AP, Daily, EK, Loretti, A. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, part VIII: the Relief-Recovery Framework. Prehosp Disaster Med. In Press.Google Scholar
37. Birnbaum, ML, O’Rourke, AP, Daily, EK. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, part IX: the Risk-Reduction Framework. Prehosp Disaster Med. In Press.Google Scholar
38. Birnbaum, ML. So what? Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(6):471-472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Random House Webster's College Dictionary. Definition of “assumption.” http://www.definitions.net/definition/assumption. Accessed July 18, 2014.Google Scholar
40. Thompson, D (ed). Definition of “assessment.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 9th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1995: 74.Google Scholar
41. Pickett, JP (ed). Definition of “assessment.” The American Heritage College Dictionary. 4th ed. Boston, New York USA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002: 86.Google Scholar
42. Balanced Scorecard Institute. Strategic Planning Basics. http://balancedscorecard.org/Resources/Strategic-Planning-Basics. Accessed March 30, 2015.Google Scholar
43. Thompson, D (ed). Definition of “goal.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 9th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1995: 580.Google Scholar
44. Pickett, JP. (ed). Definition of “goal.” The American Heritage College Dictionary. 4th ed. Boston, New York USA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002: 594.Google Scholar
45. Matuza, J. Difference between goals & objectives in grant writing. http://www.ehow.com/ facts_4779897_between-goals-objectives-grant-writing.html. Accessed March 8, 2011.Google Scholar
46. Smith, A. “Goals” and “Objectives.” know the difference, get better results. http://thebusinessplanblog.com/%e2%80%9cgoals%e2%80%9d-and-%e2%80%9 cobjectives%e2%80%9d-know-the-difference-get-better-results/. Accessed March 8, 2011.Google Scholar
47. Schuman, L, Lewis, D, Ritchie, DC. The difference between goals and objectives. http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec540/objectives/difference.html. Accessed March 8, 2011.Google Scholar
48. Lewis, D. The difference between goals and objectives. http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec540/objectives/Difference.html. Accessed March 2, 2013.Google Scholar
49. Pickett, JP (ed). Definition of “objective.” The American Heritage College Dictionary. 4th ed. Boston, New York USA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002: 958.Google Scholar
50. On-Line Learning for Sports Management. Operational Planning: purpose of Operational Planning. http;//leoissac.com/operations/top025.htm. Accessed July 18, 2014.Google Scholar
51. Thompson, D. (ed). Definition of “output.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 9th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1995: 969.Google Scholar
52. Heinrich, R, Molenda, M, Russell, JD, Smaldino, SE. Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey USA: Merrill; 1996.Google Scholar
53. Williams, R. Evaluation and systems thinking. http://users.actrix.co.nz/bobwill/. Accessed April 15, 2013.Google Scholar
54. Thompson, D. (ed). Definition of “effects.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 9th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1995: 580.Google Scholar
55. Pickett, JP. (ed). Definition of “effects.” The American Heritage College Dictionary. 4th ed. Boston, New York USA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002: 594.Google Scholar
57. Personal communication with Frederick Burkle. December 5, 2009.Google Scholar
58 The Business Dictionary. Definition of “impact.” http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/impact.html. Accessed March 8, 2011.Google Scholar
59. Thompson, D. (ed). Definition of “impact.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 9th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1995: 702.Google Scholar
60. Thompson, D. (ed). Definition of “value.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 9th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1995: 1548.Google Scholar
61. Pickett, JP. (ed). Definition of “worth.” The American Heritage College Dictionary. 4th ed. Boston, New York USA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002: 1514.Google Scholar
62. Pickett, JP. (ed). Definition of “worth.” The American Heritage College Dictionary. 4th ed. Boston, New York USA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002: 1580-1581.Google Scholar
63. Pickett, JP. (ed). Definition of “efficacy.” The American Heritage College Dictionary. 4th ed. Boston, New York USA: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002: 446.Google Scholar
64. Thompson, D. (ed). Definition of “input.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 9th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1995: 702.Google Scholar
65. Science Council. Definition of "science." http://www.sciencecouncil.org/definition. Accessed December 17, 2015.Google Scholar
66. Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary. Definition of “evidence.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence. Accessed April 1, 2015.Google Scholar
67. Google Dictionary. Definition of “evidence.” https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=evidence+definition. Accessed April 1, 2015.Google Scholar
68. Bradt, DA. Evidence-based decision-making (part I): origins and evolution in health sciences. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(4):298-305.Google Scholar
69. Bradt, DA. Evidence-based decision-making (part 2): applications in disaster relief operations. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(6):479-492.Google Scholar
70. Hemingway, P, Brereton, N. What is a systematic review? www.medicine.ox.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/syst-reviews.pdf. Accessed December 16, 2015.Google Scholar
71. Cochrane Collaboration. Handbook for Systematic Reviews. www.cochrane.org/resources/hamdbook../index.htm. Accessed December 18, 2015.Google Scholar
72. Evidence Aid. www.evidenceaid.org. Accessed December 18, 2015.Google Scholar
73. Evidence Aid. Prioritization of themes and research questions for health outcomes in natural disasters, humanitarian crises, or other major health care emergencies. http://currents.plos.org/ disasters/article/dis-13-0023-prioritization-of-themes-and-research-questions-for-health-outcomes-in-natural-disasters-humanitarian-crises-or-other-major-healthcare-emergencies/. Accessed December 17. 2015.Google Scholar