Mapping complexity in realist evaluation: A transferable programme-level theory of change for cross-agency violence reduction
Rattachement africain : gb, si. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
This article presents a realist-informed programme-level theory of change developed for a multi-site evaluation of a focused deterrence intervention aimed at reducing serious violence in five UK cities. Focused deterrence, a complex, cross-agency approach, requires theoretical tools that can account for local variation, emergent mechanisms and shifting implementation contexts. Using a five-stage process involving document review, fieldwork, workshops and qualitative interviews, we developed and refined the realist-informed programme-level theory of change to reflect variation in delivery, updated assumptions and context–mechanism–outcome configurations. Our findings reveal divergent delivery models, re-interpretations of core intervention resources and associated mechanisms, non-linear behavioural trajectories and participants’ strategic responses to perceived risks and opportunities. The final model offers a transferable framework for understanding and evaluating how complex interventions unfold across systems. We conclude by outlining lessons for evaluators seeking to develop theory-informed, complexity-aware theories of changes in real-world settings. These are particularly relevant in contexts involving cross-sector coordination, multiple delivery systems and flexible but systematic evaluation designs.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Mapping complexity in realist evaluation: A transferable programme-level theory of change for cross-agency violence reduction
- Date Crossref
- 15/05/2026
- Éditeur
- SAGE Publications
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.