Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Rigour and Relevance in Evaluation with Ingo Meyer
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Rigour and Relevance in Evaluation with Ingo Meyer
In this episode, IFIC Chief Executive Niamh Lennox-Chhugani is joined by Dr Ingo Meyer, Head of PMV Research at the University Hospital of Cologne.
With more than 15 years’ experience evaluating complex interventions across Europe, Ingo reflects on what it really means to evaluate integrated care in practice. From early European projects to his current work in Germany across oncology, palliative and primary care, he explores the persistent tensions between scientific rigour, practical relevance, and stakeholder expectations.
The conversation examines the blurred boundaries between research, evaluation and performance monitoring, and the challenge of delivering answers that are both methodologically sound and useful to decision-makers. Together, they discuss mixed methods, stakeholder communication, co-design approaches, and the growing — but still uncertain — role of artificial intelligence in evaluation.
Key insights from Ingo Meyer
On the complexity of evaluating integrated care
“The complexity of the evaluation is just as high as the complexity of what I want to evaluate.”
On rigour versus usefulness
“How can I look at things in an evaluation that is meaningful… and at the same time has enough scientific rigour so it’s done properly?”
On the difference between research and evaluation
“In research… maybe I find an answer, maybe not. In evaluation… it will be less open in terms of ‘sorry, we didn’t find anything.’”
On shifting the core evaluation question
“It is not often the right question, ‘Did it work, yes or no?’ — but rather, ‘How can I make it work?’”
On tailoring findings to different audiences
“My results need to be short, two pages, executive summary… but I always try to deliver the other things with it.”
On the importance of context alongside numbers
“I need to make sure that someone cannot just take the figure and run away with it… The context needs to be really glued to the numbers.”
On combining quantitative and qualitative insight
“I can see a lot of things, but I will never fully understand the why.”
On co-design and citizen science approaches
“At the beginning of my project, I’m pulling my stakeholders together… and we define at least a part of our research questions together.”
On artificial intelligence in evaluation
“I’m still a bit on the fence… I think it’s more a question of time rather than whether AI will ever be useful.”
View all episodes
By International Foundation for Integrated Care (IFIC)In this episode, IFIC Chief Executive Niamh Lennox-Chhugani is joined by Dr Ingo Meyer, Head of PMV Research at the University Hospital of Cologne.
With more than 15 years’ experience evaluating complex interventions across Europe, Ingo reflects on what it really means to evaluate integrated care in practice. From early European projects to his current work in Germany across oncology, palliative and primary care, he explores the persistent tensions between scientific rigour, practical relevance, and stakeholder expectations.
The conversation examines the blurred boundaries between research, evaluation and performance monitoring, and the challenge of delivering answers that are both methodologically sound and useful to decision-makers. Together, they discuss mixed methods, stakeholder communication, co-design approaches, and the growing — but still uncertain — role of artificial intelligence in evaluation.
Key insights from Ingo Meyer
On the complexity of evaluating integrated care
“The complexity of the evaluation is just as high as the complexity of what I want to evaluate.”
On rigour versus usefulness
“How can I look at things in an evaluation that is meaningful… and at the same time has enough scientific rigour so it’s done properly?”
On the difference between research and evaluation
“In research… maybe I find an answer, maybe not. In evaluation… it will be less open in terms of ‘sorry, we didn’t find anything.’”
On shifting the core evaluation question
“It is not often the right question, ‘Did it work, yes or no?’ — but rather, ‘How can I make it work?’”
On tailoring findings to different audiences
“My results need to be short, two pages, executive summary… but I always try to deliver the other things with it.”
On the importance of context alongside numbers
“I need to make sure that someone cannot just take the figure and run away with it… The context needs to be really glued to the numbers.”
On combining quantitative and qualitative insight
“I can see a lot of things, but I will never fully understand the why.”
On co-design and citizen science approaches
“At the beginning of my project, I’m pulling my stakeholders together… and we define at least a part of our research questions together.”
On artificial intelligence in evaluation
“I’m still a bit on the fence… I think it’s more a question of time rather than whether AI will ever be useful.”