Browsing by Subject "Programme theory"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Open Access
    A theory evaluation of action volunteers Africa's career guidance programme
    (2025) Waswaga, Robert; Duffy, Carren
    This research presents an evaluation of a youth unemployment initiative. Action Volunteers Africa (AVA) implements a Career Guidance Programme in Western Cape, South Africa. The Programme targets unemployed male and female youth aged 18-25 who have completed matric and live in urban areas. Career guidance is embedded in all the Life Matters Programme. The programme uses a variety of activities to help youth identify their career aspirations, build competencies, and gain work experience through volunteering, so that they are better prepared to enter the job market. The programme's current design, however, has been based on AVA's internal learning experiences with the programme. No design and implementation choices have been derived from social science research or best practice approaches. The client wanted to assess whether the theory of their programme was plausible, compared to other successful career guidance programmes, and whether any improvements were necessary to strengthen the causal logic between their activities and intended outcomes. Accordingly, a theory evaluation of the programme was undertaken. The theory evaluation was guided by five theory-driven evaluation steps prescribed by Donaldson (2007). The evaluation entailed document review, extracting initial programme theory, conducting a plausibility check using a literature review and stakeholder feedback to produce a refined plausible programme theory of the programme. Overall, the initial programme theory was found to be plausible. Most components of the programme theory suggested good alignment to similar interventions. The programme has clearly articulated pathways between different components of its theory. AVA's Career Guidance Programme aligns with different career development, counselling and learning theories. The programme's quality assurance is supported by regular feedback, the use of qualified personnel, and the specification of outputs and outcomes. The research suggested that short-term outcomes have been achieved thus far by programme participants, supporting the inclusion of these outcomes in the programme's theory of change. These outcomes included: self-awareness (in several contexts including passion, career choice, etc), self-discipline, and different behaviours that demonstrated motivation and youth effort to seek employment or further education. Following the extensive theory evaluation, an adjusted programme theory was presented to inform future programming. The findings emphasised the need for AVA to develop career guidance standards to inform its practice and also, expand its scope of activities to meet the emerging needs of targeted youth. These recommendations included exposure to more careers, the use of job shadowing, coaching, and linking interns to education opportunities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review
    (2015) Breuer, Erica; Lee, Lucy; De Silva, Mary; Lund, Crick
    Background Despite the increasing popularity of the theory of change (ToC) approach, little is known about the extent to which ToC has been used in the design and evaluation of public health interventions. This review aims to determine how ToCs have been developed and used in the development and evaluation of public health interventions globally. Method s We searched for papers reporting the use of “theory of change” in the development or evaluation of public health interventions in databases of peer-reviewed journal articles such as Scopus, Pubmed, PsychInfo, grey literature databases, Google and websites of development funders. We included papers of any date, language or study design. Both abstracts and full text papers were double screened. Data were extracted and narratively and quantitatively summarised. Results A total of 62 papers were included in the review. Forty-nine (79 %) described the development of ToC, 18 (29 %) described the use of ToC in the development of the intervention and 49 (79 %) described the use of ToC in the evaluation of the intervention. Although a large number of papers were included in the review, their descriptions of the ToC development and use in intervention design and evaluation lacked detail. Conclusions The use of the ToC approach is widespread in the public health literature. Clear reporting of the ToC process and outputs is important to strengthen the body of literature on practical application of ToC in order to develop our understanding of the benefits and advantages of using ToC. We also propose a checklist for reporting on the use of ToC to ensure transparent reporting and recommend that our checklist is used and refined by authors reporting the ToC approach.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review
    (BioMed Central, 2016-05-06) Breuer, Erica; Lee, Lucy; De Silva, Mary; Lund, Crick
    Background: Despite the increasing popularity of the theory of change (ToC) approach, little is known about the extent to which ToC has been used in the design and evaluation of public health interventions. This review aims to determine how ToCs have been developed and used in the development and evaluation of public health interventions globally. Methods: We searched for papers reporting the use of “theory of change” in the development or evaluation of public health interventions in databases of peer-reviewed journal articles such as Scopus, Pubmed, PsychInfo, grey literature databases, Google and websites of development funders. We included papers of any date, language or study design. Both abstracts and full text papers were double screened. Data were extracted and narratively and quantitatively summarised. Results: A total of 62 papers were included in the review. Forty-nine (79 %) described the development of ToC, 18 (29 %) described the use of ToC in the development of the intervention and 49 (79 %) described the use of ToC in the evaluation of the intervention. Although a large number of papers were included in the review, their descriptions of the ToC development and use in intervention design and evaluation lacked detail. Conclusions: The use of the ToC approach is widespread in the public health literature. Clear reporting of the ToC process and outputs is important to strengthen the body of literature on practical application of ToC in order to develop our understanding of the benefits and advantages of using ToC. We also propose a checklist for reporting on the use of ToC to ensure transparent reporting and recommend that our checklist is used and refined by authors reporting the ToC approach.