Evaluation Resources for Asthma Programs and Beyond.

Evaluation can ensure the quality of public health programs. Systematic efforts to identify and fully engage everyone involved with or affected by a program can provide critical information about asthma programs and the broader environment in which they operate. To assist evaluators working at programs funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC's) National Asthma Control Program (NACP), we developed a package of tools that build on the CDC's 1999 Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health. The resulting suite of evaluation tools guides evaluators through a structured but flexible process, engaging a diverse array of interest holders and actively involving them in evaluation planning and implementation, all while strengthening their capacity to meaningfully contribute to the evaluation process. For our newest tool, our team reviewed the recent evaluation literature to create an enhanced version of the 1999 framework that describes important elements of professional evaluation practice. Although the original framework describes the steps to take in conducting an evaluation and the standards for a high-quality evaluation, our enhanced framework includes an explanation of how evaluators should approach their work: by incorporating critical reflection, interpersonal competence, situational awareness, and cultural responsiveness. In this article, we highlight many of the evaluation resources our team has created since the NACP's inception, culminating in a free e-text called Planting the Seeds of High-Quality Program Evaluation in Public Health. Public health professionals working in many types of programs - not just asthma - may find these resources useful.

Evaluative Thinking in Practice: The National Asthma Control Program.

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.

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.

Roles of the state asthma program in implementing multicomponent, school-based asthma interventions.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a leading chronic childhood disease in the United States and a major contributor to school absenteeism. Evidence suggests that multicomponent, school-based asthma interventions are a strategic way to address asthma among school-aged children. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) encourages the 36 health departments (34 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) in the National Asthma Control Program (NACP) to implement multicomponent, school-based asthma interventions on a larger scale. METHODS: To gain a better understanding of replicable best practices for state-coordinated asthma interventions in schools, an NACP evaluation team conducted evaluability assessments of promising interventions run by state asthma programs in Louisiana, Indiana, and Utah. RESULTS: The team found that state asthma programs play a critical role in implementing school-based asthma interventions due to their ability to (1) use statewide surveillance data to identify asthma trends and address disparities; (2) facilitate connections between schools, school systems, and school-related community stakeholders; (3) form state-level connections; (4) translate policies into action; (5) provide resources and public health practice information to schools and school systems; (6) monitor and evaluate implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This article presents evaluability assessment findings and illustrates state roles using examples from the 3 participating state asthma programs.

Factors influencing health care workers' adherence to work site tuberculosis screening and treatment policies.

BACKGROUND: Despite the known risk of tuberculosis (TB) to health care workers (HCWs), research suggests that many are not fully adherent with local TB infection control policies. The objective of this exploratory study was to identify factors influencing HCWs' adherence to policies for routine tuberculin skin tests (TSTs) and treatment of latent TB infection (LTBI). METHODS: Sixteen focus groups were conducted with clinical and nonclinical staff at 2 hospitals and 2 health departments. Participants were segmented by adherence to TST or LTBI treatment policies. In-depth, qualitative analysis was conducted to identify facilitators and barriers to adherence. RESULTS: Among all focus groups, common themes included the perception that the TST was mandatory, the belief that conducting TSTs at the work site facilitated adherence, and a general misunderstanding about TB epidemiology and pathogenesis. Adherent groups more commonly mentioned facilitators, such as the perception that periodic tuberculin skin testing was protective and the employee health (EH) provision of support services. Barriers, such as the logistic difficulty in obtaining the TST, the perception that LTBI treatment was harmful, and a distrust of EH, emerged consistently in nonadherent groups. CONCLUSIONS: This information may be used to develop more effective interventions for promoting HCW adherence to TB prevention policies. Informed efforts can be implemented in coordination with reevaluations of infection control and EH programs that may be prompted by the publication of the revised TB infection control guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2005.

Tuberculosis contact investigation policies, practices, and challenges in 11 U.S. communities.

To describe the policies and procedures used by 11 urban tuberculosis control programs to conduct contact investigations, written policies were reviewed and semistructured interviews were conducted with program managers and staff. Qualitative analysis showed that contact investigation policies and procedures vary widely. Most policies address risk factor assessment and contact prioritization; however, none of the policies provide comprehensive guidance for the entire process. Staffing patterns vary, but, overall, staff receive little formal training; informal monitoring practices predominate. Comprehensive guidelines and programmatic support are needed to improve the quality of contact investigation processes.