Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Logic model framework for considering the inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation–research partnership
  1. Amir Alishahi Tabriz1,
  2. Susan A Flocke2,3,
  3. Deirdre Shires4,
  4. Karen E Dyer5,
  5. Michelle Schreiber6,7,
  6. Jennifer Elston Lafata8
  1. 1 Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2 Center for Community Health Integration, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  3. 3 Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
  4. 4 School of Social Work, Michigan State University School of Social Work, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
  5. 5 VA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA
  6. 6 Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
  7. 7 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  8. 8 Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jennifer Elston Lafata, Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; jel{at}


Background The published literature provides few insights regarding how to develop or consider the effects of knowledge co-production partnerships in the context of delivery system science.

Objective To describe how a healthcare organisation–university-based research partnership was developed and used to design, develop and implement a practice-integrated decision support tool for patients with a physician recommendation for colorectal cancer screening.

Design Instrumental case study.

Participants Data were ascertained from project documentation records and semistructured questionnaires sent to 16 healthcare organisation leaders and staff, research investigators and research staff members.

Results Using a logic model framework, we organised the key inputs, processes and outcomes of a healthcare organisation–university-based research partnership. In addition to pragmatic researchers, partnership inputs included a healthcare organisation with a supportive practice environment and an executive-level project sponsor, a mid-level manager to serve as the organisational champion and continual access to organisational employees with relevant technical, policy and system/process knowledge. During programme design and implementation, partnership processes included using project team meetings, standing organisational meetings and one-on-one consultancies to provide platforms for shared learning and problem solving. Decision-making responsibility was shared between the healthcare organisation and research team. We discuss the short-term outcomes of the partnership, including how the partnership affected the current research team’s knowledge and health system initiatives.

Conclusion Using a logic model framework, we have described how a healthcare organisation–university-based research team partnership was developed. Others interested in developing, implementing and evaluating knowledge co-production partnerships in the context of delivery system science projects can use the experiences to consider ways to develop, implement and evaluate similar co-production partnerships.

  • delivery system science
  • health care stakeholder engagement
  • implementation science
  • knowledge co-production
  • quality improvement

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors All authors made significant contributions to the manuscript. JEL and AAT developed the search strategy. All authors drafted and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors have read and gave final approval of the version of the manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Funding This study was funded by the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute (grant number R01CA197205).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.

  • Author note The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government.

Linked Articles

  • Viewpoint
    Glyn Elwyn Eugene Nelson Andreas Hager Amy Price