Review of the National Quality Forum's Measure Endorsement Process.

ABSTRACT: The National Quality Forum (NQF) evaluates healthcare performance measures for endorsement based on a broad set of criteria. We extracted data from NQF technical reports released between spring 2018 and spring 2019. Measures were commonly stewarded by federal agencies (44.29%), evaluated for maintenance (67.14%), classified as outcome (42.14%) or process (39.29%) measures, and used a statistical model for risk adjustment (48.57%). For 80% of the measures reviewed, a patient advocate was present on the reviewing committee. Validity was evaluated using face validity (65.00%) or score-level empirical validity (67.14%), and reliability was frequently evaluated using score-level testing (71.43%). Although 91.56% of all reviewed measures were endorsed, most standing committee members voted moderate rather than high support on key assessment criteria like measure validity, measure reliability, feasibility of use, and whether the measure addresses a key performance gap. Results show that although the Consensus Development Process includes multidisciplinary stakeholder input and thorough evaluations of measures, continued work to identify and describe appropriate and robust methods for reliability and validity testing is needed. Further work is needed to study the extent to which stakeholder input is truly representative of diverse viewpoints and improve processes for considering social factors when risk adjusting.

Evaluation methods for vaccination campaigns on college campuses: A scoping review.

Background: Vaccinations are successful, cost-effective tools to prevent the spread of certain infectious diseases. Many colleges conduct vaccination campaigns on their campuses for various vaccine-preventable diseases, including measles, mumps, influenza, HPV, and most recently, for SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19. Implementing these campaigns requires substantial effort and understanding their effectiveness is an important factor in justifying these programs. Aim: This scoping review aims to identify, review, and summarize existing evaluation methods for vaccination campaigns on college campuses in order to provide evaluation guidance for institutions planning future vaccination campaigns. Methods: Publications that focused on vaccination campaigns on college campuses for students and/or faculty and staff and described their evaluation methods were included in our analysis. A systematic search of the literature identified 2,101 articles. After duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and references searched, 43 articles were identified for full-text review. Sixteen articles provided evaluation information and were systematically reviewed. Results: Interventions targeted a variety of vaccine-preventable diseases, with the majority either aiming to increase HPV vaccine uptake or vaccinate against meningococcal serogroups. Most studies reported on campaigns that included both educational activities and provided vaccinations. Evaluation methods varied widely. Some studies measured vaccine-related knowledge and attitudes. Vaccine uptake was most commonly measured as a simple count of doses administered. Conclusions: College campus vaccination campaigns are evaluated in multiple ways, with little consistency in how the effectiveness of campaigns are measured. There is a need to develop clear evaluation methods for college vaccination programs, especially how to calculate vaccination rates associated with these efforts.