From research to policy and practice: a logic model to measure


  • Tara M. Sullivan Center for Communication Programs, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
  • Saori Ohkubo Center for Communication Programs, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
  • Ward Rinehart Jura Editorial Services
  • J. Douglas Storey Center for Communication Programs, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health


knowledge management, development studies, health, public health, developing countries


To date, few monitoring and evaluation guidelines exist for knowledge management products and services. One initiative undertaken by the Health Information and Publications Network (HIPNet) (, a network of health technical assistance organizations culminated in development of a guide to monitoring and evaluating health information products and services. The guide provides an approach to measuring the function and outcomes of health information programs, suggesting indicators and a logic model linking inputs, processes, and outputs to multiple levels of outcomes. The logic model depicts a way to strategically structure the design, implementation, and evaluation of such programs. This guide represents one of the few efforts to collect, develop, organize, and define indicators related to reach, usefulness and use of knowledge management products and services. It presents a unique logic model and list of indicators that can be used across different knowledge management products and services (e.g. manuals, guidelines, websites, networks, e-learning) to measure reach, usefulness and use. Since its development, the indicators and logic model have been used to guide the monitoring and evaluating (M&E) work of HIPNet member organizations and others. For example, the logic model has formed the foundation of M&E plans and many of the indicators and questions included in the guide have been used as the basis for measuring the reach, usefulness, and use of knowledge management for health programs. This paper discusses the theoretical basis of the logic model in this guide, the components of the logic model, and recommendations for its further development. It concludes that while this logic model based on diffusion of innovations theory fills a gap, knowledge management program designers, implementers, and evaluators will benefit from further testing the logic model and related indicators, better understanding audiences and the role of their networks, expanding the logic model to address multiple levels, further exploring relevant theory, and developing stronger needs assessment, monitoring, and evaluation approaches.


ACP-EC Technical Centre for Agriculture and Rural Cooperation (CTA), the Royal Tropic Institute
(KIT), and International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) 2009. Smart
toolkit for evaluating information projects, products and services, 2nd ed. The Netherlands:
Bandura, A. 2006. Going global with social cognitive theory: from prospect to paydirt. In: S.I.
Donaldson, D.E. Berger and K. Pezdek, eds. Applied psychology: new frontiers and rewarding
careers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 53–79.
Baranowski, T., Perry, C.L. and Parcel, G.S. 2002. How individuals, environments, and health
behavior interact. In: K. Glanz, B.K. Rimer and F.M. Lewis, eds. Health behavior and health
education, 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 165–184.
Bertrand, J.T. and Escudero, G. 2002. Compendium of indicators for evaluating reproductive health
programs, MEASURE Evaluation. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.
Berwick, D.M. 2003. Disseminating innovations in health care, The Journal of the American Medical
Association, 289 (15), 1969–1975.
Cooksy, L.J., Gill, P. and Kelly, A. 2001. The program logic model as an integrative framework for
a multimethod evaluation, Evaluation and program planning, 24, 119–128.
De Civita, M. and Dasgupta, K. 2007. Using diffusion of innovations theory to guide diabetes
program development: an illustrative example, Journal of Public Health, 29 (3), 263–268.
Fishbein, M., Triandis, H.C., Kanfer, F.H., Becker, M., Middlestadt, S.E. and Eichler, A. 2000. Factors
influencing behavior and behavior change. In: A.S. Baum, T.A. Revenson and J.E. Singer, eds.
Handbook of health psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Frankel, N. and Gage, A. 2007. M&E fundamentals: a self-guided minicourse, MEASURE evaluation,
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.
Godlee, F., Pakenham-Walsh, N., Ncayiyana, D., Cohen, B. and Packer, A. 2004. Can we achieve
health information for all by 2015?, Public health, 364, 295–300.
Montaño, D.E. and Kasprzyk, D. 2002. The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned
behavior. In: K. Glanz, B.K. Rimer and F.M. Lewis, eds. Health behavior and health education,
3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 67–98.
Moulding, N.T., Silagy, C.A. and Weller, D.P. 1999. A framework for effective management of
change in clinical practice: dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines,
Quality in health care, 8 (3), 177–183.
Myers, M. 2005. Monitoring and evaluating information and communication for development (ICD)
programmes, London: Department for International Development (DFID).
National Cancer Institute 2005. Theory at a glance: a guide for health promotion practice, US
Department of Health and Human Services. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health.
Piotrow, P.T., Kincaid, D.L., Rimon, J.G. and Rinehart, W. 1997. Health communication: lessons
from family planning and reproductive health. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rogers, E.M. 2004. A prospective and retrospective look at the diffusion model, Journal of Health
communication, 9 (6), 13–19.
Rogers, E.M. and Scott, K.L. 1997. The diffusions of innovation model and outreach from the
National Network of Libraries of Medicine to native American communities. Available: http:// (accessed 1 September 2007).
Sullivan, T.M., Strachan, M. and Timmons, B.K. 2007. Guide to monitoring and evaluating health
information products and services. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health, Washington, DC: Constella Futures, and Cambridge, MA: Management Sciences for
United Way of America 1996. Measuring program outcomes: a practical approach. Alexandria,
VA: United Way of America.
Knowledge Management for Development Journal 69
Valente, T.W. 2002. Evaluating health promotion programs. New York: Oxford University
Valente, T.W. and Davis, R.L. 1999. Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders,
The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 55–67.
Valente, T.W. and Fosados, R. 2006. Diffusion of innovations and network segmentation: the part
played by people in promoting health, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 33 (7), S23–S31.
Walker, A.E., Grimshaw, J., Johnston, M., Pitts, N., Steen, N. and Eccles, M. 2003. PRIME – PRocess
modelling in ImpleMEntation research: selecting a theoretical basis for interventions to change
clinical practice, BMC Health Services Research, 3 (1), 22pp.