Last data update: May 06, 2024. (Total: 46732 publications since 2009)
Records 1-3 (of 3 Records) |
Query Trace: Wilce M[original query] |
---|
Evaluative Thinking in Practice: The National Asthma Control Program
Fierro LA , Codd H , Gill S , Pham PK , Grandjean Targos PT , Wilce M . New Dir Eval 2018 2018 (158) 49-72 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. |
Through a culturally competent lens: Why the program evaluation standards matter
Gill S , Kuwahara R , Wilce M . Health Promot Pract 2016 17 (1) 5-8 Program evaluation is an important tool for all health professionals as it enables us to learn what works, what does not, and how we can make improvements. In this article, we describe how both program staff and evaluators can use the program evaluation standards to ensure their work is culturally competent and stakeholder driven. When public health programs and their evaluations are responsive to culture and context, and they include meaningful-not token-stakeholder engagement, we produce better evaluations that are more likely to yield useful findings and lead to more effective programs. Effective programs are culturally competent programs that benefit communities in meaningful, respectful ways. |
Evaluating home-based, multicomponent, multi-trigger interventions: your results may vary
Wilce MA , Garbe PL . Am J Prev Med 2011 41 S52-4 In public health, we operate in a world of tight resources, making the best decisions possible to maximize benefits to people with asthma, their families, and our communities. The use of evidence-based interventions is an effective way to build on experience by implementing interventions that have shown previous effectiveness. The systematic review published in this supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine was completed in order to identify effective asthma interventions for reducing asthma morbidity in a community setting.1, 2, 3 The plan is to use the information to guide funded programs on how to best allocate their resources, as well as to direct our own research and evaluation efforts at the national level. Home-based asthma interventions were chosen for the review in order to focus on efforts to reduce indoor asthma triggers because this type of intervention is used more and more at the state level, and there is not much information summarizing the effectiveness of these interventions on a community level. | The two Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide) reviews2, 3 together are invaluable resources to help us make the right decisions for our programs and, ultimately help people with asthma and their families. These Community Guide reviews are exciting: They give us evidence that home-based environmental interventions can improve the lives of children with asthma and their families. Moreover, moderate-intensity interventions can be cost effective. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:May 06, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure