Monitoring and Evaluation

Why Evaluate?

Determinants of Health

The Commission On the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH)

References

Organisations

Frameworks and Toolkits

WHO's Impact Assessment - How to Evaluate the Programme

Introduction to Program Evaluation for Public Health Programs: Self-Study Guide

Evaluation Task Areas and Checklists

Papers

Why Evaluate?

"Evaluation is a process used by researchers, practitioners, and educators to assess the value of a given program, project, or policy. The primary purposes of evaluation in public health education and promotion are to:

(1) determine the effectiveness of a given intervention and/or
(2) assess and improve the quality of the intervention.

Through evaluation, we can identify our level of success in evoking desired outcomes and accomplishing desired objectives."

- Measuring Success: Evaluation Article Types for the Public Health Education and Promotion Section of Frontiers in Public Health - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131424/

Determinants of Health

The Commission On the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH)

References

Organisations

www.measureevaluation.org/measure

MEASURE Evaluation, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has been proud to serve for more than two decades to help improve data collection, data quality, and the global capacity for research. We have blazed new trails in rigorous methods for monitoring and evaluation, developed tools in use around the world to improve data quality and data use, and defined the components of high-functioning health information systems and effective means to improve them.

Rural Health Information Hub

Information, opportunities, and resources on rural health..

The Rural Health Information Hub, formerly the Rural Assistance Center, is funded by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy to be a national clearinghouse on rural health issues. We are committed to supporting healthcare and population health in rural communities.

The RHIhub is your guide to improving health for rural residents—we provide access to current and reliable resources and tools to help you learn about rural health needs and work to address them.

Frameworks and Toolkits

WHO's Impact Assessment - How to Evaluate the Programme

https://www.who.int/roadsafety/projects/manuals/alcohol/4-How%20to.pdf

Introduction to Program Evaluation for Public Health Programs: Self-Study Guide

https://www.cdc.gov/eval/guide/cdcevalmanual.pdf

Evaluation Checklists

Evaluation Task Areas and Checklists

Managing Evaluation - Plan and manage use of resources involved in conducting an evaluation, including people, time and money.
Engaging Stakeholders - Identify stakeholders who should be informed about and involved in the evaluation and engage them accordingly in the evaluation.
Situating the Evaluation in Context - Identify the key characteristics of the program being evaluated and tailor the evaluation activities to the conditions in which the program operates.
Applying Specific Evaluation Approaches - Draw on established evaluation approaches, theories and models to guide the evaluation process.
Designing the Evaluation - Determine what aspects of the program the evaluation will focus on and make decisions about how to structure the inquiry to serve intended purposes.
Collecting and Analyzing Data - Obtain and describe data to generate credible findings.
Interpreting Evidence - Combine findings from data sources and use agreed-upon procedures and values to reach conclusions and judgments about the program.
Reporting Results and Promoting Use - Describe and communicate the evaluation’s processes and results in a way that encourages understanding and use of results by stakeholders.
Evaluating the Evaluation (Metaevaluation) - Assess the quality of the evaluation.

https://wmich.edu/evaluation/checklists

The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)Assessing & Addressing Behavioural Factors in Implementation Science

www.measureevaluation.org/prh/rh_indicators/indicator-summary

Summary List of Indicators

Monitoring and Evaluating Behavior Change Communication Programs: Monitoring HIV/AIDS Programs

A FACILITATOR’S TRAINING GUIDE - A USAID RESOURCE FOR PREVENTION, CARE AND TREATMENT (PDF)

Papers

Process evaluation of a behaviour change approach to improving clinical practice for detecting hereditary cancerThis retrospective process evaluation reports on the application of a 1-year implementation program to increase identification and management of patients at high risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. The project used the Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach, a promising implementation methodology, used successfully in the United Kingdom to address patient safety issues. This Australian project run at two large public hospitals aimed to increase referrals of patients flagged as being at risk of Lynch syndrome on the basis of a screening test to genetic services. At the end of the project, the pathologists’ processes had changed, but the referral rate remained inconsistent and low. Semi-structured interviews explored participants’ perceptions of the TDFI approach and Health services researchers wrote structured reflections. Interview transcripts and reflections were coded initially against implementation outcomes for the various TDFI approach activities: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, value for time cost, and adoption. On a second pass, themes were coded around challenges to the approach. Interviews were held with nine key project participants including pathologists, oncologists, surgeons, genetic counsellors and an administrative officer. Two health services researchers wrote structured reflections. The first of two major themes was ‘Theory-related challenges’, with subthemes of accessibility of theory underpinning the TDFI, commitment to that theory-based approach, and the problem of complexity. The second theme was ‘Practical challenges’ with subthemes of stakeholder management, navigating the system, and perceptions of the problem. Health services researchers reflected on the benefits of bridging professional divides and facilitating collective learning and problem solving, but noted frustrations around clinicians’ time constraints that led to sparse interactions with the team, and lack of authority to effect change themselves. Mixed success of adoption as an outcome was attributed to the complexity and highly nuanced nature of the setting. This made identifying the target behaviour, a key step in the TDFI approach, challenging. Introduced changes in the screening process led to new, unexpected issues yet to be addressed. Strategies to address challenges are presented, including using an internal facilitator with a focus on applying a theory-based implementation approach.

www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1125

Evaluating Community-Based Health Improvement Programs

www.measureevaluation.org/resources/publications/ms-14-87-en

Consolidated Materials