The Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers: advancing standardized evaluation of public health preparedness and response trainings.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers (PERLCs) across the United States. The PERLCs provide training to state, local, and tribal public health organizations to meet workforce development needs in the areas of public health preparedness and response, specialized training, education, and consultation. METHODS/ACTIVITY: Using Donald Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model, the PERLC network established 4 evaluation working groups that developed evaluation criteria to address each level of the model. The purpose of the working groups was to inform and promote center-level and program-level evaluation across the PERLC network; identify common training evaluation methods and measures; and share materials, resources, and lessons learned with state, local, and tribal public health organizations for potential replication. RESULTS/OUTCOMES: The evaluation of education and training, irrespective of its modality (eg, in-person, online, webinars, seminars, symposia) can be accomplished using Kirkpatrick's 4-level taxonomy. DISCUSSION: The 4 levels aim to measure the following aspects of training programs: (1) trainees' reaction; (2) knowledge acquired, skills improved, or attitudes changed; (3) behavior changed; and (4) results or impact. To successfully evaluate emergency preparedness training, drills and exercises, it is necessary to understand the fundamental tenets of each level and how to apply each to measure training outcomes. LESSONS LEARNED/NEXT STEPS: The PERLC evaluators have adopted the basic schema of Kirkpatrick's 4-level model and applied its structure to a wide variety of preparedness and emergency response training and related activities. The PERLC evaluation working groups successfully developed and tested survey methods and instruments for each of the 4 levels of Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model. Each can be used for replication by state, local, and tribal public health professionals.

The use of missing birth record data as a marker for adverse reproductive outcomes: a geocoded analysis of birth record data.

Adverse reproductive outcomes (AROs) disproportionately affect black American infants and significantly contribute to the U.S. infant mortality rate. Without accurate understanding of AROs, there remains little hope of ameliorating infant mortality rates or eliminating infant health disparities. However, despite the importance of monitoring infant mortality rates and health disparities, birth record data quality is not assured. Racial disparities in the reporting of birth record data have been documented, and missing birth record data for AROs appears to be disproportionate. Due to the extent of missing birth record data, innovative strategies have been developed to evaluate relationships between maternal socioeconomic status (SES) and community-based ARO rates. Because addresses convey aggregate information about income level, education and occupation, ZIP codes, census tracts and census block-groups have been applied to geocoding efforts. The goals of this study are to: 1) analyze the extent of missing birth record data for New Jersey areas with high rates of an ARO (preterm birth), 2) evaluate associations between the extent of missing birth record data and other AROs, and 3) consider how geocoding strategies could be applied to provide a basis for understanding maternal SES risk factors and ARO resource allocation for at-risk communities.