PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16356359

Using concept mapping to develop a logic model for the Prevention Research Centers Program.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Concept mapping is a structured conceptualization process that provides a visual representation of relationships among ideas. Concept mapping was used to develop a logic model for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers Program, which has a large and diverse group of stakeholders throughout the United States. No published studies have used concept mapping to develop a logic model for a national program. METHODS: Two logic models were constructed using the data from the concept mapping process and program documents: one for the national level and one for the local level. Concept mapping involved three phases: 1) developing questions to generate ideas about the program's purpose and function, 2) gathering input from 145 national stakeholders and 135 local stakeholders and sorting ideas into themes, and 3) using multivariate statistical analyses to generate concept maps. Logic models were refined using feedback received from stakeholders at regional meetings and conferences and from a structured feedback tool. RESULTS: The national concept map consisted of 9 clusters with 88 statements; the local concept map consisted of 11 clusters with 75 statements. Clusters were categorized into three logic model components: inputs, activities, and outcomes. Based on feedback, two draft logic models were combined and finalized into one for the Prevention Research Centers Program. CONCLUSION: Concept mapping provides a valuable data source, establishes a common view of a program, and identifies inputs, activities, and outcomes in a logic model. Our concept mapping process resulted in a logic model that is meaningful for stakeholders, incorporates input from the program's partners, and establishes important program expectations. Our methods may be beneficial for other programs that are developing logic models for evaluation planning.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lynda A Anderson, Margaret K Gwaltney, Demia L Sundra, Ross C Brownson, Mary Kane, Alan W Cross, Richard Mack, Randy Schwartz, Tom Sims, White R Carol. 2005-12-15. Using concept mapping to develop a logic model for the Prevention Research Centers Program.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16356359/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Clustering individuals using INMTD: a novel versatile multi-view embedding framework integrating omics and imaging data.

MOTIVATION: Combining omics and images can lead to a more comprehensive clustering of individuals than classic single-view approaches. Among the various approaches for multi-view clustering, nonnegative matrix tri-factorization (NMTF) and nonnegative Tucker decomposition (NTD) are advantageous in learning low-rank embeddings with promising interpretability. Besides, there is a need to handle unwanted drivers of clusterings (i.e. confounders). RESULTS: In this work, we introduce a novel multi-view clustering method based on NMTF and NTD, named INMTD, which integrates omics and 3D imaging data to derive unconfounded subgroups of individuals. According to the adjusted Rand index, INMTD outperformed other clustering methods on a synthetic dataset with known clusters. In the application to real-life facial-genomic data, INMTD generated biologically relevant embeddings for individuals, genetics, and facial morphology. By removing confounded embedding vectors, we derived an unconfounded clustering with better internal and external quality; the genetic and facial annotations of each derived subgroup highlighted distinctive characteristics. In conclusion, INMTD can effectively integrate omics data and 3D images for unconfounded clustering with biologically meaningful interpretation. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: INMTD is freely available at https://github.com/ZuqiLi/INMTD.

Cluster Analysis↗

A spatial scan statistic for ordinal data.

Spatial scan statistics are widely used for count data to detect geographical disease clusters of high or low incidence, mortality or prevalence and to evaluate their statistical significance. Some data are ordinal or continuous in nature, however, so that it is necessary to dichotomize the data to use a traditional scan statistic for count data. There is then a loss of information and the choice of cut-off point is often arbitrary. In this paper, we propose a spatial scan statistic for ordinal data, which allows us to analyse such data incorporating the ordinal structure without making any further assumptions. The test statistic is based on a likelihood ratio test and evaluated using Monte Carlo hypothesis testing. The proposed method is illustrated using prostate cancer grade and stage data from the Maryland Cancer Registry. The statistical power, sensitivity and positive predicted value of the test are examined through a simulation study.

Cluster Analysis↗

Analysis of cluster randomized cross-over trial data: a comparison of methods.

In a cluster randomized cross-over trial, all participating clusters receive both intervention and control treatments consecutively, in separate time periods. Patients recruited by each cluster within the same time period receive the same intervention, and randomization determines order of treatment within a cluster. Such a design has been used on a number of occasions. For analysis of the trial data, the approach of analysing cluster-level summary measures is appealing on the grounds of simplicity, while hierarchical modelling allows for the correlation of patients within periods within clusters and offers flexibility in the model assumptions. We consider several cluster-level approaches and hierarchical models and make comparison in terms of empirical precision, coverage, and practical considerations. The motivation for a cluster randomized trial to employ cross-over of trial arms is particularly strong when the number of clusters available is small, so we examine performance of the methods under small, medium and large (6, 18, 30) numbers of clusters. One hierarchical model and two cluster-level methods were found to perform consistently well across the designs considered. These three methods are efficient, provide appropriate standard errors and coverage, and continue to perform well when incorporating adjustment for an individual-level covariate. We conclude that choice between hierarchical models and cluster-level methods should be influenced by the extent of complexity in the planned analysis.

Cluster Analysis↗