The potential of contribution analysis to alcohol and drug policy strategy evaluation: an applied example from Wales

References

• Atkinson, A.M., & Sumnall, H. (2018). Neo-liberal discourse of substance use in the UK reality TV show, The Jeremy Kyle Show. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy. doi:10.1080/09687637.2018.1498456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birckmayer, J.D., & Weiss, C.H. (2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice. What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24, 407– 431. doi:10.1177/0193841X0002400404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonell, C., Fletcher, A., Morton, M., Lorenc, T., & Moore, L. (2012). Realist randomised controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 2299–2306. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, H.T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, J. (2016). Contribution analysis as an approach to enable public managers to demonstrate public value: The Scottish context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29, 690–707. doi:10.1108/IJPSM-12-2015-0225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dart, J. (2004). Six normative approaches to evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.clearhorizon.com.au/f.ashx/dart-six_normative_approaches.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Delahais, T., & Toulemonde, J. (2012). Applying contribution analysis: Lessons from five years of practice. Evaluation, 18, 281–293. doi:10.1177/1356389012450810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh, T., Howick, J., & Maskrey, N. (2014). Evidence based medicine: A movement in crisis? BMJ, 348, g3725. doi:10.1136/bmj.g3725
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, J.N. (2013). Pragmatism, evidence, and mixed methods evaluation. In D. M. Mertens & S. Hesse-Biber (Eds.), Mixed methods and credibility of evidence in evaluation. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 138, pp. 15–26). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/ev.20053
   Google Scholar
• Hawkins, B., Holden, C., & McCambridge, J. (2012). Alcohol industry influence on UK alcohol policy: A new research agenda for public health. Critical Public Health, 22, 297–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jagosh, J. (2019). Realist synthesis for public health: Building an ontologically deep understanding of how programs work, for whom, and in which contexts. Annual Review of Public Health, 40, 361–372. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044451
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeuw, F.L. (2012). Linking theory-based evaluation and contribution analysis: Three problems and a few solutions. Evaluation, 18, 348–363. doi:10.1177/1356389012452051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (2010). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. 30th anniversary expanded edition. New York, NY: The Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Livingston, W., Perkins, A., McCarthy, T., Madoc-Jones, I., Wighton, S., Wilson, F. & Nicholas, D. (2018). Review of working together to reduce harm: Final report Cardiff: Welsh government GSR report number 21/2018. Retrieved from http://gov.wales/statistics-and-research/review-working-together-reduce-harm/?lang=en
   Google Scholar
• Maguire, M., & Raynor, P. (2006). How the resettlement of prisoners promotes desistance from crime: Or does it? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6, 19–38. doi:10.1177/1748895806060665
   Google Scholar
• Mayne, J. (2011). Contribution analysis: Addressing cause and effect. In: R. Schwartz, K. Forss, & M. Marra (Eds.), Evaluating the complex (pp. 53–96). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Mayne, J. (2001). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly Canadian. Journal of Programme Evaluation, 16, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Mayne, J. (2012). Contribution analysis: Coming of age? Evaluation, 18, 270–280. doi:10.1177/1356389012451663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCambridge, J., Hawkins, B., & Holden, C. (2014). Vested interests in addiction research and policy: The challenge corporate lobbying poses to reducing society’s alcohol problems: Insights from UK evidence on minimum unit pricing. Addiction, 109, 199–205. doi:10.1111/add.12380
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nutt, D.J., King, L.A., & Phillips, L.D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis. Lancet, 376, 1558–1565. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61462-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen, A., McDonald, D., Lenton, S., & Dietze, P.M. (2018). Assessing causality in drug policy analyses: How useful are the Bradford Hill criteria in analysing take-home naloxone programs? Drug and Alcohol Review, 37, 499–501. doi:10.1111/dar.12523
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Government. (2008). The road to recovery: A new approach to tackling Scotland’s drug problem. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Government.
   Google Scholar
• Scottish Government. (2011). Social science methods series guide 6: Contribution analysis. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Government.
   Google Scholar
• Stocks-Rankin, C.R. (2014). Reflective literature review of contribution analysis. Glasgow, Scotland: Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services
   Google Scholar
• Talcott, F. (2016). Methodology guide to contribution analysis for Christian Aid. Oxford, UK: The International Non-Governmental Training and Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Welsh Assembly Government. (2000). Tackling substance misuse in wales: A partnership approach. Cardiff, Wales: Welsh Assembly Government.
   Google Scholar
• Wimbush, E., Montague, S., & Mulherin, T. (2012). Applications of contribution analysis to outcome planning and impact evaluation. Evaluation, 18, 310–329. doi:10.1177/1356389012452052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodhead, C., Collins, H., Lomas, R., & Raine, R. (2017). Co-located welfare advice in general practice: A realist qualitative study. Health Social Care Community, 25, 1794–1804. doi:10.1111/hsc.12453
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar