Developing an initial explanatory theory for Partnering for Change using realist evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Partnering for Change (P4C) is an innovative practice model for school-based occupational therapy developed in Canada and informed by a program of research spanning nearly two decades. National and international interest in P4C necessitated development of an explanatory theory to guide implementation in varied contexts. The purpose of this study is to document the process of theory development and to provide an overview of the initial P4C explanatory theory. METHODS: Realist evaluation was used to construct an initial explanatory theory of P4C drawing on P4C developers' conceptualisations of the model, document analysis, and analysis of transcripts from interviews and focus groups. CONSUMER AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: No consumers were involved in the study design or analysis. FINDINGS: Four sets of premises expressed as context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) comprise the initial explanatory theory of P4C. An abstracted summary of these four sets along with contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes central to the P4C initial explanatory theory is presented. An exemplar CMOC is shared to illustrate how theoretical premises are developed and expressed using realist evaluation. CONCLUSION: This study advances knowledge regarding the hypothesised core elements of P4C and provides an example of using realist evaluation to advance knowledge in occupational therapy. Preliminary implications for clinical practice are discussed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Partnering for Change (P4C) is a way of providing occupational therapy services in schools that helps all children to learn and participate successfully. P4C was created in Ontario, Canada, and has been researched for almost 20 years. People in different parts of Canada and other countries are interested in trying P4C. As the researchers who created P4C, we think there is a need to explain how it works so it can be used in different places. This study explains how we created a theory to describe P4C. To develop this theory, we used a method called realist evaluation that would help us explain how, why, and in what situations P4C works best. To do this, we analysed documents and transcripts of interviews and focus groups. Our findings are organised into four main ideas, each explained in terms of contexts (the situations), mechanisms (how and why P4C works), and outcomes (the impacts of P4C). One detailed example is given to show how these ideas were formed and work together. In conclusion, our study helps us understand the key parts of P4C and shows how realist evaluation can be used to improve knowledge in occupational therapy. The study also suggests some early ideas on how P4C can be used in practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».