|
Evaluating the California Clean Air Project: A Multi-Method Evaluation Framework
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Pamela Drake, ETR Associates Inc, pamd@etr.org
|
| Seow Ling Ong, ETR Associates Inc, seowlingo@etr.org
|
| Abstract:
This presentation will focus on the 3-year evaluation of the California Clean Air Project (CCAP). CCAP is a statewide initiative that provides in-person, teleconference and web-based assistance, educational materials, consultations and trainings on secondhand smoke (SHS) issues and policies for communities in California. The goal is to protect individuals from the toxic effects of exposure to SHS in workplaces, multi-unit housing, tribal casinos, and outdoors. A variety of qualitative and quantitative methods were used in the evaluation. Outcomes were measured with online surveys and interviews (including case studies in some communities). Methods for the process evaluation included key informant interviews, a database tracking system, website monitoring, media exposure records, and training evaluations. The presentation will examine the challenges faced in evaluating technical assistance related to policy change. It also will show how each data source contributed to an overall picture of the project.
|
|
Evaluating Funded Health Research: Application of a Standardized Evaluation Framework to Optimize Performance Results
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Kathryn Graham, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, kathryn.graham@ahfmr.ab.ca
|
| Amy Wong, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, amy.wong@ahfmr.ab.ca
|
| Heidi Chorzempa, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, heidi.chorzempa@ahfmr.ab.ca
|
| Liza Jensen, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, liza.jensen@ahfmr.ab.ca
|
| Liza Chan, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, liza.chan@ahfmr.ab.ca
|
| Abstract:
The Alberta Heritage Foundation Medical Research (AHFMR) is a not-for- profit provincial health research funding agency. In early 2008, AHFMR developed a common framework for managing performance of various programs. The primary focus is to evaluate the impacts of funded health research and program effectiveness. The framework is innovative in that it incorporates three distinct models from evaluation, health research and performance management disciplines. The models are: (1) the logic model, (2) the 'pay back model' (Buxton and Hanney, 1996), and (3) the balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992). Implementation has begun at the organizational level and is currently being cascaded across all programs. Key drivers for the common framework include: (1) accountability in the use of public funds toward health research, and (2) improving organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Application of the comprehensive framework will help AHFMR better achieve its mandate and meet the needs of stakeholders.
Buxton, M., & Hanney, S. (1996). How can payback from health services research be assessed? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 1(1), 35-43.
Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. (2009). Making an impact: A preferred framework and indicators to measure returns on investment in health research. Ottawa (ON): The Academy. Retrieved from www.cahs-acss.ca/e/assessments/completedprojects.php
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.
|
|
Randomized Control Trial of an Agricultural Safety Intervention: Application of Theory of Planned Behavior as a Framework for Behavioral Change
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Hamida Jinnah-Ghelani, University of Georgia, hamidajinnah@gmail.com
|
| Zolinda Stoneman, University of Georgia, zo@ihdd.uga.edu
|
| Abstract:
Injury and death rates of youth on farms in the U.S. are particularly high. Most approaches in farm injury prevention have focused on knowledge as the primary outcome. Gains in knowledge are minimally effective for changing behavior. Results will be presented from a three-year randomized control trial evaluating the effectiveness of a family-based farm safety intervention that utilizes the 'Theory of Planned Behavior' as a framework for changing safety behaviors of individuals. Sixty families having children between 10 and 19 years, who are active on the farm, were randomly assigned to one of three groups - parent-led, peer led and control group. Analysis of covariance models on the final wave of data collected, controlling for pre-intervention levels of the outcome variables, will be preformed. We postulate that one group will be more effective in positively changing the knowledge, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors of parents than the other.
|
|
What's Our Score? The Development of a Scale for Assessing Differences in Implementation of a Multi-site Initiative
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Stephanie Herbers, Washington University in Saint Louis, sherbers@wustl.edu
|
| Sarah Shelton, Washington University in Saint Louis, sshelton@wustl.edu
|
| Jenine Harris, Saint Louis University, harrisjk@slu.edu
|
| Abstract:
In 2004, a Missouri health foundation established a nine-year initiative to reduce tobacco use in Missouri. Programs funded through the initiative share common goals, but vary in design and implementation. Now in the initiative's fifth year, outcomes such as prevalence of tobacco use are being assessed. As the initiative evaluators, we will present the process we took to develop a scoring scale to rate Missouri counties on the extent to which the initiative is being implemented. The scoring scale takes into account the range of implementation across counties including amount, comprehensiveness, and effectiveness. As the initiative progresses, we will use the scoring scale to look at changes in tobacco use prevalence at the county-level at various points in time. In addition to our process, we will also present our findings and recommendations for how evaluators can use this type of scoring scale in their work.
|
| | | |