After The Innovation: Outcomes From the Texas Behavioral Data Project

Abstract

The Texas Department of Health and University of Texas Southwestern staff, using formative assessment data, developed a set of innovative methods and tools to increase the use of behavioral and epidemiologic data in decision-making about HIV prevention interventions by HIV prevention community planning groups (CPGs) and HIV prevention providers. Semistructured interviews, mail surveys, meeting observations, and content analysis of funding proposals were used to measure the results of the multifaceted intervention. Compared to baseline measures, CPG members reported that data played a more central and desired role in their decision-making. HIV prevention providers exposed to the project's materials were more likely to choose evidence-based interventions to conduct. The tools and structural intervention methods of this project were diffused and had an impact on the use of behavioral data by community planning groups and HIV prevention providers. The structural interventions were not sufficient without the additional effect of the trained peers acting as advocates and intervention innovators.

Improving the Use of Data for HIV Prevention Decision Making: Lessons Learned

“…These efforts to address local needs, build local capacity, and promote closer working relationships with TDH and its TA providers also may have created more trust and improved the working alliances in the planning process. Our evaluation of the process (Batchelor et al, 2005b) had focused more on operational outcomes of these efforts, however, we also detected greater commitment and enthusiasm about the planning process.…”

“…These trainings have accompanied the increased availability of morbidity and risk behavior data, described previously. These trainings appear to have had less impact on CPGs than the training of providers (Batchelor et al, 2005b).…”

“…This model includes: major factors that effect decision making and data use in planning groups (previously summarized in , the specific needs identified in our formative research (Amaro et al, 2005a;Batchelor et al, 2005a), the interventions that emerged from this formative work and findings from our evaluations (Amaro et al, 2005b;Batchelor et al, 2005b). As is evident here, some barriers were addressed in very different ways by the two participating states, even though Texas and Massachusetts both could be characterized as moderate prevalence jurisdictions (CDC, 2001) and each has considerable geographic variation in HIV prevalence and transmission risks.…”

“…Another approach is for the CPG to collect its own data with TA from the health department or its TA providers, as was done in Texas (which enabled CPGs to satisfy the needs assessment requirement for their prevention plans). Prevention providers also were engaged in data collection tasks in Texas and performed qualitative community assessments (Batchelor et al, 2005b). The CDC staff from this project have worked with other jurisdictions to undertake these kinds of activities.…”

“…These have included having CPG members become involved with health departments in collecting and analyzing needs assessment data with appropriate TA, training cochairs in the use of data for selecting interventions, and training prevention providers to collect community assessment data and apply it to intervention selection and adaptation. Having cochairs and CPG members (i.e., the prevention providers who also sit on CPGs) who have training and hands on experience with data, it is possible to supplement professional TA to CPGs with knowledgeable people who can act as peer leaders (Batchelor et al, 2005b;. CPGs are not expected to collect and analyze their own data, although this sometimes occurs in practice, typically with supervision from health departments or their TA providers.…”