# How to Use the Logical Framework in a Research Proposal

By the end of this article, you will be able to build a complete logical framework (logframe) for a research proposal, test whether its causal chain holds together, write indicators that reviewers respect, and connect the whole matrix to your budget, timeline, and evaluation plan. Have on hand your draft specific aims or objectives, your funder's guidelines, a spreadsheet, and any prior evaluation or pilot data from your team.

## What the Logical Framework Is and Why Funders Use It

A logical framework is a one-page (sometimes two-page) matrix that forces you to state, in explicit rows and columns, what your project will do, what it will produce, how you will know, and what conditions outside your control must hold for success to happen. It descends from planning tools developed for international development agencies in the 1970s and is now standard in health services research, implementation science, education research, and most mission-oriented public funding calls.

Two related tools get confused constantly, so define them up front.

- A **logic model** is a visual roadmap of programme activities and their linkages to intended outcomes. It reads left to right: inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, impact.
- A **logical framework** is a tabular matrix built on that logic model, adding measurable indicators, means of verification, and assumptions.

The distinction matters in practice. In a recent co-design project for a national dementia research network, the programme logic model served as the foundational step, articulating programme activities and their linkages to intended outcomes before the team defined evaluation questions, indicators, methods, and information sources [1]. The logframe is essentially that logic model, hardened into a testable table.

Why do funders care? Because a logframe does two things a prose aims page cannot. First, it exposes causal claims to inspection. Second, it commits you to a measurement plan. In implementation and dissemination science, logic models are a familiar, reusable tool for aligning interventions, behavioral determinants, and outcomes across the intervention-to-practice pipeline [2]. A reviewer who can trace your causal chain row by row can find its weak links quickly, which is exactly what good peer review is for.

## The Four Rows and Four Columns of the Logframe

Most logframes use three or four levels of objectives as rows. The vocabulary varies by funder (European Union templates say "Overall objective" and "Specific objective," while many agency templates say "Goal" and "Purpose"), but the logic is the same.

| Level | What it answers | Typical wording | Who controls it |
|--|--|--|--|
| Goal (impact) | Why does this project matter in the long run? | Population or system level change | Nobody, fully |
| Purpose (outcome) | What changes in knowledge, behavior, or practice? | The change your project directly produces | Partly |
| Outputs | What deliverables will exist? | Datasets, tools, papers, trained staff, protocols | You |
| Activities (inputs) | What will you actually do? | Tasks, milestones, budget lines | You |

Each row then gets three columns:

1. **Objectively verifiable indicators (OVIs)**. The measurable evidence that the level was achieved, with baseline and target.
2. **Means of verification (SoV)**. Where the indicator data come from: surveys, chart review, administrative records, interviews, publication records.
3. **Assumptions**. External conditions that must hold at that level for the vertical logic to work. These are things you do not control.

Reading down a column is called the **vertical logic**: if the activities are completed and the activity-level assumptions hold, then the outputs follow. If the outputs are delivered and the output assumptions hold, then the purpose follows. If the purpose is achieved and the purpose-level assumptions hold, then the goal follows. Reading across a row is the **horizontal logic**: the indicator and its means of verification must actually be able to detect the narrative summary statement.

## Using the Logical Framework in a Research Proposal Step by Step

![Five steps from problem statement and goal through theory of change, narrative summary, indicators and assumptions to stress-testing and budget links.](/article-images/illustrations/logical-framework-research-proposal-logframe-build-steps.webp)

This walkthrough uses a running worked example so every step produces concrete text. The example is illustrative: a school-based study to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among middle school students. Adapt the structure to your own domain.

### Step 1: Write the problem statement and the goal

State the problem in one sentence with evidence, then state the goal as the long-run change you hope to contribute to. The goal should sit above your study's direct reach.

**Worked goal statement.** "Reduce the proportion of middle school students who do not meet the recommended 60 minutes of daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity."

The 60-minute daily recommendation for youth is established public health guidance, so you can cite it without a specific study. Notice the goal is written as a change, not as a topic.

### Step 2: Build the theory of change chain

Before touching the matrix, write the causal story in plain sentences. A co-developed evaluation framework in the dementia research network followed a four-step process that translates directly here: (1) determine objectives, (2) co-develop a theory of change, (3) identify quantitative and qualitative methods and build the evaluation plan, and (4) establish a feedback loop [1]. Do these steps in this order. Teams that start by listing activities produce logframes that describe effort rather than effect.

**Worked chain.** "If we train teachers to deliver short activity breaks (activity), then structured activity breaks will run at least four days per week in participating classrooms (output). If the breaks run reliably and students find them acceptable (assumption), then students' weekly MVPA will increase (purpose). If student MVPA increases sustainably and school schedules continue to permit breaks (assumption), the district moves toward its student health goal (goal)."

Involve the people affected. The dementia network framework was co-produced with a person living with dementia and three care partners from its advisory group, which changed what counted as a meaningful indicator and how data were collected [1]. A logframe built without stakeholder input often measures what is convenient rather than what matters.

### Step 3: Fill the narrative summary column

Write one sentence per row. Test each sentence with two questions. Reading upward, ask "but why?" of each level, and the level above should answer it. Reading downward, ask "but how?" of each level, and the level below should answer it.

| Narrative summary (worked example) |
|--|
| **Goal**: District-level student MVPA rises and student health indicators improve over 5 years |
| **Purpose**: Students in intervention schools increase weekly MVPA by the end of one school year |
| **Output 1**: Teachers in 10 schools trained to deliver daily activity breaks |
| **Output 2**: A validated observation checklist for break delivery exists |
| **Output 3**: A dataset on delivery fidelity, acceptance, and MVPA is analyzed and reported |
| **Activity 1.1**: Recruit 10 schools and 40 teachers |
| **Activity 1.2**: Deliver 2 training sessions per school |
| **Activity 2.1**: Pilot the checklist in 3 classrooms and revise |
| **Activity 3.1**: Collect baseline and endline accelerometer data |

If "but why?" of Output 2 is not the Purpose, the row does not belong. Delete it or move it to the assumptions column.

### Step 4: Write indicators with baselines and targets

![Calculation of the goal indicator showing an absolute change of 8 percentage points and a relative increase of about 36 percent from 22 to 30 percent.](/article-images/illustrations/logical-framework-research-proposal-goal-indicator-change.webp)

This is where most proposals fail. An indicator must be specific, measurable, time-bound, and honestly attributable to your project's level. Activity-level rows get process indicators. Output rows get delivery indicators. The purpose row gets an outcome indicator. The goal row gets a population or system indicator you will not fully achieve alone.

**Worked indicator set.**

| Row | Indicator | Baseline | Target | Means of verification |
|--|--|--|--|--|
| Goal | % of district students meeting the 60 min/day MVPA guideline | 22% (district survey, year 0) | 30% by year 5 | District youth risk survey |
| Purpose | Mean weekly minutes of MVPA per student (accelerometer) | 210 min/week | 250 min/week by month 10 | Accelerometer subset (n=200) |
| Output 1 | % of trained teachers passing a delivery competency check | 0% | 90% within 2 months of training | Post-training assessment |
| Output 2 | Observation checklist with inter-observer agreement | Not applicable | κ ≥ 0.75 in pilot | Double-coded pilot observations |
| Output 3 | Complete case dataset for ≥ 85% of enrolled students | Not applicable | 85% retention at endline | Study database |

Two worked calculations you should be able to show in your proposal.

```text
Goal indicator arithmetic
Baseline:  22% of students meet the 60 min/day MVPA guideline
Target:    30% by year 5
Absolute change: 30 - 22 = 8 percentage points
Relative change: (30 - 22) / 22 = 0.364, about a 36% relative increase
Reviewer test: is an 8-point district shift plausible from ONE school-level
study? If not, soften the goal wording to "contribute to."
```

```python
# Tracking the Output 3 retention indicator during the project
enrolled = 200
completed = 173

retention_pct = completed / enrolled * 100
print(f"Retention: {retention_pct:.1f}%")     # Output: Retention: 86.5%
print(f"Target met: {retention_pct >= 85}")   # Output: Target met: True
```

Choosing indicators is a design decision, not an afterthought. In the dementia evaluation work, each evaluation question was aligned with specific indicators, methods, and information sources, so the measurement plan could not drift away from the objectives [1]. Conversely, a narrative review of a new nursing role found that implementation reports consistently reported improved care quality outcomes yet struggled to define role-specific indicators capable of capturing that role's distinct contributions [3]. The lesson is blunt: if your indicator could apply to any project in your field, it is not capturing your project.

### Step 5: Write the assumptions column honestly

For each row, list the external conditions you do not control. Write them as positive statements that can be monitored.

- Activity level: "Participating schools remain open and staffed throughout the academic year."
- Output level: "Trained teachers remain employed in participating schools for the study year."
- Purpose level: "School schedules continue to allow at least 20 minutes for daily breaks."
- Goal level: "District leadership maintains the student health goal beyond the funding period."

An empty assumptions column is a red flag to experienced reviewers. It signals either that you have not thought about risk or that you are presenting a deterministic plan for an uncertain world.

### Step 6: Stress-test the vertical logic

Read the full matrix bottom up and top down, out loud, using the if-then chain. Then apply three checks.

1. **The necessity test.** Could the purpose be achieved even if an output failed? If yes, that output is not necessary, or your purpose is misstated.
2. **The sufficiency test.** Do the outputs, together, actually deliver the purpose? If a missing ingredient exists, it is either a hidden activity or an assumption you must surface.
3. **The measurement test.** Can each indicator be collected with the stated means of verification, at the stated cost, within the project period?

A practical tool from implementation science reinforces this step. When translating an established research framework (NASSS, the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability framework) into a practical tool for nursing teams, researchers found that frameworks only help routine decision-making when they are operationalized into concrete, usable instruments rather than left as abstract diagrams [4]. Your logframe is your operationalization. If a row cannot survive the necessity, sufficiency, and measurement tests, it is abstract decoration.

### Step 7: Check objective congruence before submission

One inexpensive quality check comes from Thailand's national research funding evaluation work, which used the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC) within a mixed-methods performance assessment of funded programmes [5]. The IOC asks a panel of experts to rate each item (here, each logframe row or indicator) against the objective it claims to serve on a simple ordinal scale, and a commonly used convention scores each rating from 1 (irrelevant) to 4 (highly congruent).

```python
# Congruence check on one indicator, rated by 5 expert colleagues
# Scale: 1 = irrelevant, 2 = weakly congruent, 3 = congruent, 4 = highly congruent
ratings = [4, 4, 3, 4, 3]

ioc = sum(r >= 3 for r in ratings) / len(ratings)
print(f"IOC: {ioc:.2f}")   # Output: IOC: 1.00  (all 5 raters scored 3 or higher)
```

An indicator or row that earns low congruence scores gets rewritten or cut before a funder ever sees it. This five-minute exercise with three colleagues catches more weak indicators than a week of solo editing.

### Step 8: Connect the logframe to evaluation, budget, and feedback

The logframe is not a standalone artifact. Three linkages must exist in your proposal.

- **Evaluation plan linkage.** Every indicator needs a method and an information source, and qualitative and quantitative methods should be chosen to answer the evaluation questions, as modeled in the co-developed dementia framework [1]. That project also planned inclusive, arts-based data collection with advisory group members, a reminder that your data collection approach should fit the people providing the data [1]. Similar dual-perspective evaluation design appears in a feasibility study of a mobile health data collection tool for shift-work nurses, which combined end-user testing with an expert assessment of methodological rigor across a phased, user-centered process [6].
- **Budget linkage.** Each activity row should map to a budget line. If Activity 1.2 requires two training sessions per school across ten schools, the budget must show twenty sessions with facilitator time, materials, and travel. Reviewers do the arithmetic.
- **Feedback linkage.** The final step in the dementia network's process was establishing a feedback loop so findings change the programme [1]. Build this into your logframe: name the meeting or governance mechanism where indicator data get reviewed and adaptations get decided.

## Grant Proposal Planning Around the Logframe

The logframe is the spine of grant proposal planning, but funders are institutions run by people making investment decisions under uncertainty, and your logframe should serve that reality. Interviews with healthcare executives who decided to fund a telementoring pilot identified five themes that drove their commitment: personal experiences, benefits, risks, partnerships, and timing [7]. The same executives treated the intrapreneurial drive of the project team, its focus on financial sustainability, ongoing improvement, and scalability, as an indicator of future sustainability that increased investment confidence [7].

Practical implications for your logframe and surrounding narrative:

- **Benefits and risks map to your columns.** The benefits your funder cares about should appear as purpose and goal indicators. The risks should appear, explicitly, as assumptions with monitoring plans.
- **Partnerships map to activities and assumptions.** Name partner organizations in activity rows, and state the continuity of those partnerships as assumptions.
- **Timing belongs in the activity rows.** Tie each output to a quarter, not a vague phase.
- **Sustainability is measurable, not rhetorical.** State what continues after funding ends and which indicator will show it.

Alignment also runs at the system level. Analysis of Thailand's programme management units found strong structural alignment between funded programme objectives and national research and innovation priorities, which is precisely the alignment a national funder checks when reading your logframe against its own strategic plan [5]. Before submission, put your funder's published priorities beside your goal row and check the wording overlaps at the level of outcomes, not topics.

If you are self-teaching, a structured research [grant writing](/knowledge/molecular-biology/grant-writing) course typically covers the aims page, significance, approach, and budget, and the logframe exercise belongs beside the approach section. Taking a course before drafting your logframe works, but building a draft logframe first and then taking the course often works better, because you arrive with real rows to critique.

## Logical Framework Research Proposal Tips

These tips reflect recurring differences between logframes that survive review and logframes that do not.

1. **Co-develop, do not solo-develop.** Frameworks tailored to specific contexts and co-designed with the people involved are recommended over generic templates, and co-production changed both the indicators and the data collection methods in the dementia network case [1].
2. **Borrow the structural parallels between intervention and implementation science.** When extending an intervention study into implementation research, the core constructs translate: interventions become implementation strategies, behavioral determinants become determinants of implementation behavior, and effectiveness outcomes become implementation outcomes [2]. Your logframe rows should mirror the study type you are actually proposing.
3. **For proposals using AI tools in analysis, plan the disclosure now.** Emerging standards for human-AI augmented mixed methods research call for transparent reporting of AI systems, model versions, prompting procedures, analytic iterations, researcher interventions, and validation steps [8]. If an AI tool touches your data pipeline, add a row or output covering this disclosure, because funders and journals increasingly expect it.
4. **For systematic review proposals, model the conceptual domain first.** A mentefact-based framework for health sciences education reviews found that explicit conceptual modeling of the domain improved conceptual alignment before computational filtering and extraction [9]. In logframe terms, your output "search strategy optimized" needs a conceptual model behind it, or the review drifts.
5. **For programme-level or capacity-building proposals, consider a maturity framing.** A capability maturity model for value-based healthcare payment structures progression across five levels, from initial awareness to full integration, letting organizations assess current state and prioritize next actions [10]. A similar staged structure in your logframe (level 1 achieved by month 6, level 2 by month 18) reads as credible to funders who must judge readiness.
6. **Version-control the matrix.** Keep the logframe in a plain structured format your whole team can edit and diff.

```yaml
# logframe.yaml - keep the matrix in version control
goal:
  summary: "District student MVPA rises over 5 years"
  indicator: "% students meeting 60 min/day MVPA guideline"
  baseline: 22
  target: 30
  verification: "District youth risk survey"
  assumptions:
    - "District maintains student health goal"
purpose:
  summary: "Students in intervention schools increase weekly MVPA"
  indicator: "Mean weekly MVPA minutes (accelerometer)"
  baseline: 210
  target: 250
  verification: "Accelerometer subset (n=200)"
  assumptions:
    - "School schedules permit daily activity breaks"
outputs:
  - summary: "Teachers trained to deliver daily activity breaks"
    indicator: "% teachers passing competency check"
    target: 90
    verification: "Post-training assessment"
```

Expected reviewer benefit: when your logframe lives in a file, co-investigators can comment on specific rows, and every revision is traceable, which mirrors the transparency expectations now standard in research reporting [8].

## Common Mistakes and Limitations

These are the mistakes reviewers see most often, each with the critique it earns and the fix.

- **Confusing the logic model with the logframe.** A left-to-right flowchart is a logic model, not a logframe. Reviewer comment: "The proposal provides a diagram but no measurable indicators or verification sources." Fix: convert the flowchart into the four-column matrix.
- **Counting activity instead of outcome.** "Delivered 20 workshops" is an output indicator masquerading as an outcome. Reviewer comment: "The indicators measure effort rather than effect." Fix: reserve activity counts for output rows, and put changed knowledge, behavior, or practice in the purpose row.
- **Indicator stacking.** Fifteen indicators per row is unreadable and unmeasurable. Reviewer comment: "The evaluation plan is infeasible within the budget." Fix: one to three indicators per row, chosen by the congruence check in Step 7.
- **Blank or generic assumptions.** "Funding continues" is not an assumption about your project's environment, it is a tautology. Reviewer comment: "The assumptions column does not reflect project-specific risks." Fix: name conditions specific to your context, as in the school-schedule example above.
- **No baseline.** A target without a baseline cannot show change. Reviewer comment: "Targets are stated without reference values." Fix: report a measured baseline, a published comparison value, or state explicitly that the project will collect its own baseline first.
- **Broken vertical logic.** The purpose is not answered by "but how?" at the output level. Reviewer comment: "The activities do not plausibly lead to the stated outcome." Fix: delete orphan rows, add missing activities, or lower the purpose statement to what the outputs could actually deliver.
- **Treating the logframe as frozen.** Rigid logframes break when conditions change. The dementia network framework built a feedback loop precisely so data would flow back into adaptation [1]. Fix: schedule review points where the team revisits assumptions and adjusts, and say so in the proposal.
- **Overclaiming attribution.** A single study rarely moves a district or national indicator alone. Fix: word the goal row as a contribution and reserve strong causal language for the purpose row, where your design supports it.
- **Ignoring implementation context.** Digital and organizational interventions are shaped by interacting technical, organizational, professional, and contextual factors, which is why complexity-aware reflection tools exist for implementation planning [4]. A logframe that ignores context produces clean matrices for messy realities.

One honest limitation of the tool itself: a logframe assumes that causality can be specified in advance as a chain of if-then statements. Exploratory research, where the interesting outcomes are unknown, fits the tool poorly. For those projects, use the logframe for the process and capacity objectives, and state your exploratory aims separately.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What is the difference between a logic model and a logical framework?

A logic model is a visual, left-to-right map of inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes, while a logical framework is the tabular matrix that adds indicators, means of verification, and assumptions to that same causal chain. In practice, teams often draft the logic model first and then harden it into the logframe matrix.

### How many levels should my logframe have?

Most research proposals need four levels: goal, purpose, outputs, and activities. Simpler grants can collapse the goal and purpose rows, but any funder that asks for impact will expect all four.

### Do funders require a logical framework?

Many do, especially European Union calls, development agencies, and mission-oriented public funders, while NIH-style proposals ask for the same logic expressed in the aims and approach sections. Read the call guidelines, because the required template and vocabulary vary.

### How do I write good indicators for a logframe?

An indicator must be specific, measurable, time-bound, matched to the correct row level, and collectible through the stated means of verification within your budget. Pair every indicator with a baseline and a target, and test each one with a three-person congruence rating before submission.

### What goes in the assumptions column?

Assumptions are external conditions you do not control that must hold at each level for success, written as positive, monitorable statements. School schedules, staffing continuity, partner commitment, and policy stability are typical examples.

### Can I change the logframe after funding?

Yes, in almost every funding arrangement, provided you document the change and inform the program officer. Build scheduled review points into the proposal so adaptation is planned rather than improvised.

### How does a logframe relate to a theory of change?

The theory of change is the narrative and evidential story of why your causal chain should work, and the logframe is the operational matrix built on top of it. Standard practice is to develop the theory of change first, then derive the logframe rows from it.

### Can AI tools help draft a logical framework?

They can accelerate first drafts of row wording and indicator phrasing, but a human must verify the causal logic, the measurability of every indicator, and the honesty of the assumptions. If AI participates in your analysis pipeline, plan to disclose the systems, versions, prompting procedures, and human oversight in your reporting.

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "FAQPage",
  "mainEntity": [
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "What is the difference between a logic model and a logical framework?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "A logic model is a visual, left-to-right map of inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes, while a logical framework is the tabular matrix that adds indicators, means of verification, and assumptions to that same causal chain. Teams often draft the logic model first and then harden it into the logframe matrix."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "How many levels should my logframe have?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Most research proposals need four levels: goal, purpose, outputs, and activities. Simpler grants can collapse the goal and purpose rows, but any funder that asks for impact will expect all four."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Do funders require a logical framework?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Many do, especially European Union calls, development agencies, and mission-oriented public funders, while NIH-style proposals ask for the same logic expressed in the aims and approach sections. Read the call guidelines because the required template and vocabulary vary."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "How do I write good indicators for a logframe?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "An indicator must be specific, measurable, time-bound, matched to the correct row level, and collectible through the stated means of verification within your budget. Pair every indicator with a baseline and a target, and test each one with a small expert congruence rating before submission."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "What goes in the assumptions column?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Assumptions are external conditions you do not control that must hold at each level for success, written as positive, monitorable statements. School schedules, staffing continuity, partner commitment, and policy stability are typical examples."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Can I change the logframe after funding?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Yes, in almost every funding arrangement, provided you document the change and inform the program officer. Build scheduled review points into the proposal so adaptation is planned rather than improvised."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "How does a logframe relate to a theory of change?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "The theory of change is the narrative and evidential story of why your causal chain should work, and the logframe is the operational matrix built on top of it. Standard practice is to develop the theory of change first, then derive the logframe rows from it."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Can AI tools help draft a logical framework?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "They can accelerate first drafts of row wording and indicator phrasing, but a human must verify the causal logic, the measurability of every indicator, and the honesty of the assumptions. If AI participates in your analysis pipeline, plan to disclose the systems, versions, prompting procedures, and human oversight in your reporting."
      }
    }
  ]
}
</script>

## Sources

1. [A Co-Developed Evaluation Framework for a Patient Engagement Programme Within a National Dementia Research Network.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42878207/)
2. [Bridging the gap between intervention and implementation science methodologies in physical activity research.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42837437/)
3. [The current evidence base for the clinical nurse leader: a narrative review of the literature.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24720939/)
4. [The Nursing Implementation Complexity Tool for Digital Technology Implementation in Nursing: Design Science Research Study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42814951/)
5. [Aligning national human resource development with future workforce transitions and the SDGs: policy lessons from Thailand's research-funding system.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42835102/)
6. [A Transferable Evaluation Framework for Mobile Health Data Collection in Shift-Work Nurses: Development and Feasibility Study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42814634/)
7. [Executive Decision-Making: Piloting Project ECHO® to Integrate Care in Queensland.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33335464/)
8. [On AI-augmented transformatizing in practice: protocols, quality criteria, and reporting standards for Human-AI Augmented Mixed Methods Research.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42890195/)
9. [Optimizing systematic reviews in health sciences education: a mentefact-based algorithmic framework.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42787056/)
10. [Value-based payment capability maturity model: a conceptual framework.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42928379/)