Evidence Based Chronic Disease Prevention Module 8: Evaluating The Program Or Policy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Evidence Based Chronic Disease Prevention Module 8: Evaluating The Program Or Policy PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 1344a6-ODNmY


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Evidence Based Chronic Disease Prevention Module 8: Evaluating The Program Or Policy


Understand the basic components of program evaluation. Describe the differences and unique contributions of quantitative and ... Challenge: Ambiguous outcomes ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:121
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 97
Provided by: DrJaesonT
Learn more at: http://www.uic.edu


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Evidence Based Chronic Disease Prevention Module 8: Evaluating The Program Or Policy

Evidence Based ChronicDisease Prevention Module
8 EvaluatingThe Program Or Policy
  • Presented by Karen Peters, DrPH

  • Understand the basic components of program
  • Describe the differences and unique contributions
    of quantitative and qualitative evaluation.
  • Understand the concepts of measurement validity
    and reliability.

Develop statement of the issue
Determine what is known in the literature
Quantify the issue
Evaluate the program or policy
Develop program or policy options
Develop an action plan
  • The whats and whys of evaluation
  • Study designs and measurement issues
  • Types of evaluation
  • Quantitative
  • Qualitative
  • Organizational issues in evaluation
  • Infeasible to provide in-depth discussion
  • e.g., sampling/instrument development
  • Can show basic components in an evaluation, what
    to look for, where to turn for help

What is Evaluation?
  • A process that attempts to determine as
    systematically and objectively as possible the
    relevance, effectiveness, and impact of
    activities in light of their objectives.
  • From Last JM. A Dictionary of Epidemiology.
    Third Edition. New York Oxford Press 1995.
  • Complex and diverse field

Some questions to consider?
  • What are the most significant challenges you face
    in program evaluation?
  • In program planning when should you begin
    planning an evaluation?

Why Evaluate?
  • Public health agencies need to be accountable
  • Basis for choices when resources are limited
  • Helps to determine costs and benefits
  • Source of information for improving programs and
  • Increasingly mandated by funders/policy makers
  • Convincing funders is not always easy
  • Leads to research questions that can be tested in
    other studies/programs

New Directions
  • Social programs have become more broad, complex
    and interactive
  • Seek to bring about changes in community
    capacity, social support, decision-making,
    control over resources and individual behavior
  • Time to supplement traditional strategies with
    new approaches reflecting complexity of
    community-based initiatives

New Directions
  • More flexible evaluation approaches can play role
    in building community capacity and self
  • Need to re-direct program evaluation toward
    community-based public health values
  • Traditional evaluation conducted by experts to
    determine if program objectives met,
    strengths/weaknesses/replicability and
    contribution to scientific knowledge

New Directions
  • Some evaluators believe communities lack skills
    to design, engage in and interpret evaluations
  • However, experts may lack insight/ flexibility
    needed to capture essence of community projects
    or to answer questions raised by communities and

New Directions
  • Community-based evaluation perspective involves
    more participatory and inclusive process that
    incorporates the values, knowledge, expertise and
    interests of the community and uses evaluation as
    a tool for community capacity building
  • Community involved as full/equal partner allows
    for development of more relevant program
    success measures and produces data that are
    useful in community settings

New Directions
  • Evaluation is 1 part of broader planning process
    but can help in
  • reflecting on progress
  • document where going, where coming from
  • share what worked and what did not with other
  • demonstrate need for targeted resources to
    address community issues
  • illustrate impact of community based initiatives
    to decision/policy makers
  • provide information on developing meaningful
    community based indicators

Research Phases Model(Greenwald and Cullen, 1985)
  • Phase 1 Hypothesis Development
  • Ex Link between sedentary behavior - obesity
  • Phase 2 Methods Development
  • Pilot test of intervention to increase physical
    activity and validation of measures
  • Phase 3 Controlled Intx Trial (Efficacy)
  • Small scale randomized trial of physical activity
  • Phase 4 Defined Population (Effectiveness)
  • Larger scale trial of PA in populations of
  • Phase 5 Demonstration (Dissemination)
  • Evaluation of results of PA program

Evaluation Models
  • For Practitioners
  • Models identify key factors to consider when
    developing/selecting health behavior programs
  • Factors to focus on when reading the literature
  • For Researchers
  • Models identify important dimensions to be
    included in program evaluations

Evaluation Models
  • 2 Major Frameworks (there are many others)
  • For Process and Formative Evaluation
  • CDC Framework for Public Health Programs
  • For Impact and Outcome Evaluation
  • RE-AIM Framework

Framework for Program Evaluation
  • 2 year process by CDC
  • designed as a framework for ongoing, practical
    program evaluation
  • can be integrated with routine program program
  • involves input from program staff, community
    members, other stakeholders, not just evaluation
  • Involves 6 basic steps and 4 broad evaluation

Broad Evaluation Framework (ala CDC)
  • Engage stakeholders
  • Describe the program
  • Focus the evaluation design
  • Gather and analyze evidence
  • Justify conclusions
  • Ensure use and share lessons learned
  • CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public
    Health, 9/17/99 and Center for Advancement of
    Community Based Public Health, June 2000

CDC Framework for Evaluation
  • 4 Evaluation standards
  • Guidelines that can help assess whether an
    evaluation is well designed
  • Utility Is the evaluation useful?
  • Does the evaluation answer questions that are
    relevant to the stakeholders
  • Feasibility Is the evaluation practical?
  • Is the evaluation realistic and cost-effective

CDC Framework for Evaluation
  • Propriety Is the evaluation ethical?
  • Does the evaluation consider the rights and
    interests of those involved and affected
  • Accuracy Is the evaluation correct?
  • Do the evaluation findings convey information
    that is correct and technically adequate

CDC Framework for Evaluation
  • Step 1 Engage the stakeholders
  • Stakeholders - those involved in implementing the
    program and those served or affected by it
    including decision-makers who can do something
    with the results
  • Standards for step 1 Utility and Propriety
  • Utility Have you identified individuals and
    organizations affected by the evaluation?
  • Are those involved in the evaluation trustworthy
    and competent?

CDC Framework for Evaluation
  • Propriety
  • Is there an explicit, written agreement about
    what is to be done, how, by whom and when?
  • Does the evaluation design protect the rights and
    welfare of those involved?
  • Are the individuals who are conducting the
    evaluation interacting respectfully with
  • Have you discussed conflicts of interest openly
    and honestly?

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Step 2 Describe the program
  • summarize the program being evaluated with a
    statement of need which includes expectations, a
    logic model, specifying resources available to
    conduct program activities and how program fits
    into larger organizational/community context
  • A good description allows the program to be
    compared to similar efforts and makes it easier
    to figure out what parts brought about what

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Standards for Step 2 Accuracy/Propriety
  • Accuracy Have you clearly and accurately
    described the program
  • Have you documented the program context
  • Propriety Is the evaluation complete and fair
  • Does it assess program strengths and weaknesses

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Step 3 Focus the evaluation design
  • Specify the evaluations overall intent
  • Determine who and what the evaluation is for
    (users and uses)
  • What questions the evaluation should examine
  • What methods are best to answer the questions

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Purpose of evaluation depends on programs stage
    of development
  • New or developing program - feasibility of
    intervention approach
  • Implementation - fine tuning or changes needed
  • Established program - assess program effects
  • Standards for Step 3
  • Feasibility
  • Propriety
  • Accuracy

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Feasibility
  • Have you considered the political interests/needs
    of groups and obtained buy-in
  • Does the information produced justify the costs
  • Are evaluation procedures practical
  • Propriety
  • Does evaluation design help to identify needs
  • Are costs guided by sound/ethical accountability
  • Accuracy
  • Is there an accurate description of evaluation
    purposes and procedures

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Step 4 Gather credible evidence
  • Need well rounded picture of the program
  • Develop indicators that translate program
    concepts into specific measures
  • Use multiple sources of evidence that reflect
    different perspectives about the program
  • Techniques used to gather and handle evidence
    should be compatible with cultural conditions in
    each program setting

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Standards in Step 4 Utility and Accuracy
  • Utility Are you collecting information that
    addresses pertinent program issues and is
    responsive to stakeholder needs
  • Accuracy Have you adequately described your
    sources of information
  • Do data collection procedures address internal
    validity and reliability issues
  • Is there a system in place for identifying and
    correcting errors

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Step 5 Justify Conclusions
  • Involves making claims about a program based on
    evidence gathered
  • Stakeholder values provide basis for making
    judgements about program merits/performance
  • Conclusions are based on analysis,synthesis and
    interpretation of information to detect patterns
    and result in recommendations
  • Reaching good conclusions requires variety of
    stakeholder perspectives

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Standards for Step 5 Accuracy/Utility
  • Accuracy Has data analysis process been
    effective in answering key evaluation questions
  • Can you explicitly justify your conclusions
  • Utility Have you carefully described the
    perspectives, procedures and rationale used to
    interpret the findings

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Step 6 Ensure use, share lessons learned
  • Make sure stakeholders understand the evaluation
    procedure and findings
  • All participants should have the opportunity to
    provide feedback
  • Evaluators should provide any needed follow-up
  • Use a variety of communication strategies to
    disseminate evaluation results in a timely and
    unbiased manner

CDC Evaluation Framework
  • Standards for Step 6 Utility, Propriety,
  • Utility - do evaluation reports describe the
    program context, purpose, procedures and findings
  • Propriety - Have evaluators made sure findings
    (including limitations) are accessible to
    everyone affected by the program
  • Accuracy - do evaluation reports reflect the
    findings fairly and impartially?

RE-AIM Evaluation FrameworkGlasgow, Vogt, Boles,
1999Glasgow, McKay, Piette, Reynolds, 2001
  • Reach, Efficacy or Effectiveness (depending on
    research phase), Adoption, Implementation,
  • RE-AIM relies on 2 comprehensive models
  • PRECEDE-PROCEED (Green Kreuter 1999)
  • Diffusion Theory (Rogers 1995 Nutbeam 1996)

Dimensions of RE-AIM
  • Reach
  • Individual Level
  • What of potentially eligible participants will
    take part
  • How representative are they?
  • Efficacy or Effectiveness
  • Individual Level
  • What was the impact on all who began?
  • What was the impact on intermediate primary
  • What was the positive/negative (unintended)
    outcomes, including quality of life?

Dimensions of RE-AIM
  • Adoption
  • Setting Level
  • What of settings/intervention agents will
    participate? (worksites, schools, educators,
  • How representative are they?
  • Implementation
  • Setting or Agent Level
  • To what extent were the intervention components
    delivered as intended (in the protocol), when
    conducted in applied settings by non researchers

Dimensions of RE-AIM
  • Maintenance
  • Individual and Setting Levels
  • Individual Level What are the long term effects
    (minimum 6-12 months following intervention)?
  • Setting Level To what extent are different
    intervention components continued or

Common Challenges and Suggested Strategies Using
RE-AIM Framework
  • Reach
  • Challenge Not including a relevant, high risk,
    or representative sample
  • Strategy Use population-based recruitment or
    over sample high risk groups, reduce exclusion
  • Efficacy or Effectiveness
  • Challenge Ambiguous outcomes
  • Strategy Assess broader set of outcomes, conduct
    subgroup analyses, use different assessment points

Common Challenges and Suggested Strategies Using
RE-AIM Framework
  • Adoption
  • Challenge Program never adopted or endorsed -
    used only in academic settings
  • Strategy Involve participants in all phases,
    approach numerous settings early on while
    revision is still possible
  • Implementation
  • Challenge Protocols not delivered as intended
    (Type III error)
  • Strategy Assess treatment as too complicated,
    intensive, incompatible involve non-researchers

Common Challenges and Suggested Strategies Using
RE-AIM Framework
  • Maintenance
  • Challenge Program or effects not maintained over
  • Strategy Include maintenance phase in protocol
    and evaluation plans Leave treatment behind
    after study and plan for institutionalization

Common Study/Evaluation Designs
  • Experimental/randomized
  • Quasi-experimental
  • Time-series
  • Use of existing data

Study/Evaluation Designs
  • Quasi-experimental
  • Increasing attention
  • At least one intervention and one comparison
    group, without randomization
  • Appeal of intervening thru intact social groups
  • See Koepsell chapter in readings (in Module 4)

Study/Evaluation Designs
  • Use the best designs feasible
  • Pre- post-data
  • Comparison groups
  • Complete program records
  • Reliable and valid measures
  • Proper analytic techniques
  • Review principles/tools from Goodman, page 39 (in
    Module 8)

Challenges in CommunityWide Studies
  • Varying degrees of intervention exposure
  • Running programs in multiple locations
  • Accounting for community-level variance
  • Lack of sensitivity of the community
  • Concepts of participatory research
  • Equity, collective decision making
  • High-quality, ethical research
  • Addressing social inequalities
  • Maximize learning opportunities
  • See Goodman article on community capacity

Challenges in CommunityWide Studies
  • Community-level variance
  • Individuals in communities, neighborhoods,
    schools, worksites are correlated
  • ICC (intra-class correlation coefficient)
  • People have related characteristics (not
  • In practical terms, means increased chance of
    Type I error (saying there is a difference when
    there really is not)

Measurement Issues
  • Components of a good evaluation
  • Adequate sample size
  • High validity
  • High reliability
  • Sample size considerations
  • Number of communities
  • Number of individuals per community
  • Increasing number of communities versus number of
    individuals per community
  • Can rely on simple, accessible programs like Epi

Concepts of Validity and Reliability and their
  • Measurement Issues
  • Evaluation threats
  • Validity
  • Is the instrument or design measuring exactly
    what was intended? (Self report vs.... biologic
  • Reliability
  • Is the measurement being conducted consistently?
    (Face to face vs...... telephone, different

Measurement Issues
  • Validity best available approximation to the
  • Internal Validity
  • The extent of causality (the effects are really
    attributable to the program)
  • External Validity
  • The extent of generalizability
  • Importance?? (so what???)

Measurement Issues
  • Major threats to validity
  • Low statistical power
  • Violated assumptions in statistical tests
  • Reliability of measures
  • Reliability of treatment implementation
  • Random confounders in the experiment
  • Random heterogeneity of respondents
  • adapted from Cook and Campbell, 1979

Measurement Issues
  • Reliability (repeatability)
  • Consistency in measurement
  • Multiple types
  • Inter-observer
  • Test-retest
  • Internal consistency

Measurement Issues Examples
  • Validity
  • Self-reported rate of having a health
    professional check for hemoglobin A1C among
    diabetics in an intervention program compared
    with clinic records
  • Reliability
  • Test-retest data from the BRFSS on self-report of
    seeing a health care professional in the last
    year for diabetes among diabetics in Illinois

Measurement Issues Ensuring Validity and
Reliability in Evaluation
  • Literature/contacting researchers may show you
    accepted methods
  • Multiple statistical methods available to report
    validity and reliability
  • Evaluation instruments often need community
  • Participatory methods may prevent use of existing

Four Purposes of Evaluation
  • Needs Assessment
  • Process
  • Impact
  • Outcome

How do you decide?
  • Use data available
  • What does the data tell you?
  • What other information do you want?
  • What other programs are already available in
    different locations?
  • Reality constraints Staffing, resources, time

Needs Assessment
  • Diagnostic Evaluation
  • Context Evaluation
  • feedback on knowledge, attitudes, risk behaviors,
    health status, and perceived needs of the target
    population and of the status of available health
    promotion programs

Process Evaluation
  • Formative evaluation
  • feedback on program implementation site
    response participant response including
    appropriateness of materials, methods,content
    practitioner response, and personnel competency

Example IL Arthritis Awareness
  • 3 components
  • brochure alone
  • brochure with community outreach
  • brochure, community outreach, physician education
  • What would you want to know about each component?

Types of Evaluation Process evaluation
  • Field of Dreams evaluation
  • If you build it, will they come?
  • Shorter-term feedback on program implementation,
    content, methods, participant response,
    practitioner response
  • What is working, what is not working
  • Uses quantitative or qualitative data
  • Data usually involves counts, not rates or ratios

Types of Evaluation
  • Considerations for process evaluation
  • Sources of data
  • Program data
  • Limitations of data
  • Time frame
  • Availability
  • Example
  • Number of diabetics being obtaining foot
    examinations statewide through primary care

Impact Evaluation
  • Summative evaluation
  • long or short term feedback on knowledge,
    attitudes, beliefs and behavior change (KABBBs)
    of participants (skills development), programs
    and policies of organizations and governments
  • Time 1 - decide what to include in intervention
  • Time 2 - did the intervention make a difference
  • Conduct survey or interview participants

Impact Evaluation
  • Uses quantitative or qualitative data
  • Probably more realistic endpoints for most public
    health programs and policies

Impact Evaluation
  • Considerations for impact evaluation
  • Sources of data
  • Surveillance or program data
  • Limitations of data (validity and reliability)
  • Time frame
  • Availability
  • Example
  • Eye examination rates of diabetics in Illinois

Types of Evaluation
  • Outcome evaluation
  • Long-term feedback on health status, morbidity,
    mortality, disability or quality of life
  • Uses quantitative data
  • Present throughout integrated strategic plan
  • Also called summative evaluation

Types of Evaluation
  • Considerations for outcome evaluation
  • Sources of data
  • Routine surveillance data
  • Limitations of data (validity and reliability)
  • Time frame
  • Availability
  • IDPH IPLAN website
  • Example
  • Rates of end stage renal disease among diabetics
    in Illinois

Types of Evaluation Outcome evaluation
  • Some move toward standardizing (outcome)
    indicatorse.g., CDCs consensus indicators
  • What if yours is not on the list?
  • Race-ethnicity-specific infant mortality rate
  • Motor vehicle crash death rate
  • Work-related injury death rate
  • Suicide rate
  • Lung cancer death rate
  • Breast cancer death rate
  • Cardiovascular disease death rate
  • Homicide rate

Types of Evaluation Outcome evaluation
  • All-cause mortality rate
  • AIDS incidence
  • Measles incidence
  • Tuberculosis incidence
  • Syphilis incidence
  • Incidence of low birth weight
  • Births to adolescents
  • Prenatal care
  • Childhood poverty
  • Proportion of persons living in counties
    exceeding EPA standards for air quality

Types of Evaluation Outcome/impact evaluation
  • Common public health data sources
  • Vital events registries
  • Disease specific registries
  • Population and house census
  • Routine health services records
  • Health programs delivery records
  • Hospital discharge data
  • Disease notification within surveillance systems
  • Sample surveys within surveillance systems
  • Other sample surveys
  • Other data banks from programs outside the health

Data Questions for Consideration
  • What type of evaluation is this?
  • How would you analyze these data?
  • What would be your initial conclusions?
  • What other data might support or detract from
    your conclusions?
  • What are some limitations of your risk factor

Types of Evaluation
  • Outcome
  • Doing the Right
  • Impact
  • (performance measures)
  • Process Doing Things Right

Evaluation Framework
  • Program
  • -
  • - Content?
  • Process -
  • - Time
  • -
  • Behavior
  • - Knowledge gain?
  • Evaluation Impact -Attitude change?
  • Types -Habit change?
  • -Skill development?
  • Health
  • - Mortality?
  • Outcome -Morbidity?
  • -Disability?
  • (Adapted from Green et al, 1980) -Quality of

Evaluation Polarities
  • Formative Summative
  • Qualitative Quantitative
  • Process Outcome
  • Impact

Types of Evaluation
  • Quantitative versus qualitative methods
  • Avoid choosing one or the other
  • Generally more familiarity with quantitative

Quantitative vs.... Qualitative
  • Quantitative (numbers) surveillance data,
    surveys, records
  • Qualitative (words) observations, in-depth
    individual interviews, group interviews, focus
    groups, diaries

Why Qualitative?
  • When there are no quantitative instruments
  • When you are not sure if the measures are
    appropriate for the population you are working
  • When you are not sure if you are asking the right
  • When you want to understand program processes not
    just impact and outcomes

Why Qualitative?
  • When you want more in depth information about
    program implementation -
  • What do clients experience,
  • what services are provided to clients,
  • How is the program organized?
  • What do staff do? How has the program developed?
  • When you want detailed, descriptive information
    about the program for the purpose of improving
    the program

Observation Dimensions
  • Role of observer
  • full participant, partial participant,
    onlooker/observe as outsider
  • Covert or overt
  • Do others know you are observing?
  • Duration of observation
  • Short term vs..... long term
  • Focus of observation
  • narrow, single component of program vs..... whole

Types of Questions You Can Ask
  • Behavioral/experience
  • Opinion/value
  • Feeling
  • Knowledge
  • Sensory
  • Demographic/background
  • (ALL from past, present, future)

In Depth Interviewing Types
  • Informal conversational interview
  • General interview guide
  • Standardized open-ended interview

Informal Conversational Interview
  • No interview guide no predetermined set of
  • Particularly useful when do not know what types
    of questions to ask and when yo will be in the
    environment for some time
  • Each interview builds on the previous one -
    flexibility and responsiveness to previous
    experiences and the environment

Informal Conversational Interview
  • Requires a long time to get systematic
  • Open to interviewer effects
  • tired
  • conversational skills
  • capacity to build rapport

Interview Guide
  • List of questions or issues to be explored - a
  • Can get similar information from several
  • General topics and probes
  • General outline to discuss on predetermined
  • Maintain conversational quality

Standard Open-Ended Interview
  • Set of carefully worded and arranged questions
  • Less flexibility of issues to explore or probing
  • Minimizes variation in questions asked, thus
    reduces bias
  • Useful when have several interviewers

Focus Group and Group Interviews
  • Relatively homogeneous group
  • 6-10 people
  • Semi-structured
  • Focus group - build on each others ideas -
    advantage of group processcan see influence of
    social networks on issue at hand
  • Group interview - several people together, not
    necessarily take advantage of group process

Wording of Questions
  • Open ended - do not presuppose dimensions of
    feeling, thoughts, or experiences
  • Clear - use appropriate language, reflect back
    language you hear
  • Singular questions - can preface with going to
    ask about strengths, weaknesses, likes, dislikes
    - then ask each individually
  • Neutrality re subject and rapport with individual

Wording of Questions
  • Acknowledge multiple experiences - can provide
    illustrations or examples some have said this,
    others that, still others have different opinions
    - what do you think?
  • Avoid leading questions

  • Can you give me an example of that?
  • Can I stop you here for a minutecan you tell me
    a bit more about x can re-direct conversation
  • Does anyone else have other experiences with this?

Recording Data
  • Permission and consent
  • Notes - during and after the interview include
    your feelings tired/excited how did the
    interview seem to you?
  • Note surroundings
  • Tape recording - make sure it is on, make sure it

  • Purposeful sampling - notion of gaining
    information from those who have it
  • extreme or deviant cases - outstanding successes
    or notable failures
  • maximum variation - look for common themes across
    multiple participants or programs - small sample,
    great diversity
  • homogenous samples - individual or focus groups

  • Snowball or chain sampling
  • recommended informants - who else should I speak
  • Criterion sampling
  • all cases who meet some predetermined criteria

  • From transcription and notes
  • Focused coding - with predetermined categories in
  • Open coding - categories and themes from the data
  • Multiple coders
  • Label so you can go back to context
  • Triangulation

Reliability and Validity
  • Neutrality rather than objective and subjective
  • impartial, not predisposed toward certain
    findings ahead of time, no predetermined results
    to support
  • Notion of generalizability vs.... extrapolation
  • generalizable - impossible because nothing is
    context free
  • extrapolation - speculations on the likely
    applicability of findings to other situations
    under similar, not identical, conditions

Other Considerations in Qualitative Evaluation
  • Involve stakeholders in development of program
    objectives and evaluation questions
  • Evaluation requires clear program objectives
  • Measure program processes, impacts, and outcomes
    using measures appropriate for the questions
  • Expect frustration from those collecting data,
    resistance from those feeling judged

Organizational Issues/Summary
  • Program personnel may be threatened by the
  • Need to maintain objectivity
  • Involvement may reduce resistance but may
    threaten objectivity
  • Trade-off of comprehensive evaluation versus
    nothing at all
  • Think of 10 Rule as you design and implement

Organizational Issues/Summary
  • How can I do evaluation when theres so much
    real work to do?
  • Independent (outside) evaluation may be useful
  • What to look for in a good evaluation
  • Remember the use of multi-disciplinary teams

A Word on Coalitions and Partnerships
  • Seems to be an interest in and emphasis on the
    use and effectiveness of coalitions as part of
    public health programming
  • Little is known currently about impact and
    outcome measures for coalitions
  • More is known about process of coalitions
  • Both qualitative and quantitative measures are
    needed in this area

Other Resources on Evaluation
  • World Wide Web Virtual Library Evaluation
  • http//user.berlin.de/alfio.cermi/index.html
  • CDC Evaluation Resources
  • http//www.cdc.gov/eval/over.htm
  • CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public
  • http//www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4811a1/
  • Center for the Adv. of Comm Based Public Health
  • University of Toronto (http//www.utoronto.ca/shp/
  • Univ.of WI Ext http//www.uwex.edu/ces/pdante/eval
  • Kellogg Fndt http//www.wkkf.org/Publications/eva

Course Objectives
  • Construct a concise, measurable statement of a
    public health issue or statement
  • Determine what is known in the scientific
  • Describe public health issues using quantitative
    data sources
  • Generate public health program or policy options
  • Create public health program or policy action
  • Construct a logic model
  • Evaluate a public health program
About PowerShow.com