IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0120368.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Framework for the Monitoring and Evaluation of International Surgical Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Author

Listed:
  • George M Ibrahim
  • David W Cadotte
  • Mark Bernstein

Abstract

Background: An estimated two billion people worldwide lack adequate access to surgical care. To address this humanitarian emergency, an increasing number of international surgical partnerships are emerging between developed and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). At present, there are no clear indicators that may be used to assess the effectiveness of such initiatives. Study Design: We conducted an international qualitative study of 31 surgeons from developed and LMICs involved in international partnerships across a variety of subspecialties. Thematic analysis and grounded theory were applied in order to develop a practical framework that may be applied to monitor and evaluate global surgical initiatives. Results: Several themes emerged from the study: (i) there is a large unmet need to establish and maintain prospective databases in LMICs to inform the monitoring and evaluation of international surgical partnerships; (ii) assessment of initiatives must occur longitudinally over the span of several years; (ii) the domains of assessment are contextual and encompass cultural, institutional and regional factors; and (iv) evaluation strategies should explore broader impact within the community and country. Based on thematic analysis within the domains of inputs, outputs and outcomes, a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of international surgical initiatives, the Framework for the Assessment of InteRNational Surgical Success (FAIRNeSS) is proposed. Conclusions: In response to the increasing number of surgical partnerships between developed and LMICs, we propose a framework to monitor and evaluate international surgical initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • George M Ibrahim & David W Cadotte & Mark Bernstein, 2015. "A Framework for the Monitoring and Evaluation of International Surgical Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120368
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120368
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120368
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120368&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0120368?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    2. Millar, Annie & Simeone, Ronald S. & Carnevale, John T., 2001. "Logic models: a systems tool for performance management," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 73-81, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    2. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    3. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    4. Kaplan, Sue A. & Garrett, Katherine E., 2005. "The use of logic models by community-based initiatives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 167-172, May.
    5. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    6. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    7. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    8. Sherman, Paul David, 2016. "Using RUFDATA to guide a logic model for a quality assurance process in an undergraduate university program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 112-119.
    9. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    10. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    11. Matt Andrews, 2022. "This is How to Think About and Achieve Public Policy Success," CID Working Papers 413, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    12. Wifo, 2021. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 10/2021," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 94(10), October.
    13. Sobelson, Robyn K. & Young, Andrea C., 2013. "Evaluation of a federally funded workforce development program: The Centers for Public Health Preparedness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 50-57.
    14. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    15. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler, 2018. "Innovationseffizienz. Österreich im internationalen Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61111, January.
    16. Fangyuan Chang & Andrea Eriksson & Britt Östlund, 2020. "Discrepancies between Expected and Actual Implementation: The Process Evaluation of PERS Integration in Nursing Homes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-18, June.
    17. Louise R. Manfredi & Meriel Stokoe & Rebecca Kelly & Seyeon Lee, 2021. "Teaching Sustainable Responsibility through Informal Undergraduate Design Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-13, July.
    18. Laura Kreiling & Ahmed Bounfour, 2020. "A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: development and initial use," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1718-1747, December.
    19. Hyun-Kyu KANG, 2015. "Development of Guideline for Preliminary Feasibility Study on Government R&D Programs in Korea," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 2805212, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    20. Carlos Vallejo & David Romero & Arturo Molina, 2017. "Implementation of best manufacturing practices using logic models and system dynamics: project design and project assessment views," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 535-575, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120368. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.