Program evaluation is a critical tool for understanding and improving organizational activities and systems. This report updates the 1999 CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health (CDC. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recomm Rep 1999;48[No. RR-11];1-40) by integrating major advancements in the fields of evaluation and public health, lessons learned from practical applications of the original framework, and current Federal agency policies and practices. A practical, nonprescriptive tool, the updated 2024 framework is designed to summarize and organize essential elements of program evaluation, and can be applied at any level from individual programs to broader systems by novices and experts for planning and implementing an evaluation. Although many of the key aspects from the 1999 framework remain, certain key differences exist. For example, this updated framework also includes six steps that describe the general process of evaluation planning and implementation, but some content and step names have changed (e.g., the first step has been renamed Assess context). The standards for high-quality evaluation remain central to the framework, although they have been updated to the five Federal evaluation standards. The most substantial change from the 1999 framework is the addition of three cross-cutting actions that are core tenets to incorporate within each evaluation step: engage collaboratively, advance equity, and learn from and use insights. The 2024 framework provides a guide for designing and conducting evaluation across many topics within and outside of public health that anyone involved in program evaluation efforts can use alone or in conjunction with other evaluation approaches, tools, or methods to build evidence, understand programs, and refine evidence-based decision-making to improve all program outcomes.

Although evaluative thinking lies at the heart of what we do as evaluators and what we hope to promote in others through our efforts to build evaluation capacity, researchers have given limited attention to measuring this concept. We undertook a research study to better understand how instances of evaluative thinking may present in practice-based settings-specifically within four state asthma control programs funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Asthma Control Program. Through content analyses of documents as well as interviews and a subsequent focus group with four state asthma control programs' evaluators and program managers we identified and defined twenty-two indicators of evaluative thinking. Findings provide insights about what practitioners may wish to look for when they intend to build evaluative thinking and the types of data sources that may be more or less helpful in such efforts.

Compared with people in other developed countries, Americans live shorter lives, have more disease and disability, and lag on most population health measures. Recent research suggests that this poor comparative performance is primarily driven by profound local place-based disparities. Several initiatives successfully used sub-county life expectancy estimates to identify geographic disparities, generate widespread interest, and catalyze multisector actions. To explore the feasibility of scaling these efforts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists initiated a multiphase project - the Sub-County Assessment of Life Expectancy. Phase I participants reviewed the literature, assessed and identified appropriate tools, calculated locally relevant estimates, and developed methodological guidance. Phase I results suggest that most state and local health departments will be able to calculate actionable sub-county life expectancy estimates despite varying resources, expertise, and population sizes, densities, and geographies. To accelerate widespread scaling, we describe several successful case examples, identify user-friendly validated tools, and provide practical tips that resulted from lessons learned.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Accurately recording vaccine lot number, expiration date, and product identifiers, in patient records is an important step in improving supply chain management and patient safety in the event of a recall. These data are being encoded on two-dimensional (2D) barcodes on most vaccine vials and syringes. Using electronic vaccine administration records, we evaluated the accuracy of lot number and expiration date entered using 2D barcode scanning compared to traditional manual or drop-down list entry methods. METHODS: We analyzed 128,573 electronic records of vaccines administered at 32 facilities. We compared the accuracy of records entered using 2D barcode scanning with those entered using traditional methods using chi-square tests and multilevel logistic regression. RESULTS: When 2D barcodes were scanned, lot number data accuracy was 1.8 percentage points higher (94.3-96.1%, P<0.001) and expiration date data accuracy was 11 percentage points higher (84.8-95.8%, P<0.001) compared with traditional methods. In multivariate analysis, lot number was more likely to be accurate (aOR=1.75; 99% CI, 1.57-1.96) as was expiration date (aOR=2.39; 99% CI, 2.12-2.68). When controlling for scanning and other factors, manufacturer, month vaccine was administered, and vaccine type were associated with variation in accuracy for both lot number and expiration date. CONCLUSION: Two-dimensional barcode scanning shows promise for improving data accuracy of vaccine lot number and expiration date records. Adapting systems to further integrate with 2D barcoding could help increase adoption of 2D barcode scanning technology.