Formative Assessment of Use of Behavioral Data in HIV Prevention: Texas

Abstract

A formative assessment was conducted with Texas HIV prevention community planning group (CPG) members, prevention provider staff, and supervisors of those staff to better understand how to enhance their use of epidemiologic and behavioral data in the selection and prioritization of prevention interventions. Semi-structured interviews, mail surveys, and content analysis of funding proposals were used to determine the current use of these data, their perceived value, and the most trusted sources for data. CPG members, prevention provider staff, and supervisors valued information from their peers and networking most, and made more use of socially available information than they did research or systematically collected assessment data. CPG members wanted more local data and data on specific sub-populations of interest. Prevention providers viewed the utility of behavioral data as limited, and were primarily concerned with the pragmatic aspects of fielding interventions; however, this group also expressed an interest in rapid community assessment methods and learning more about new and effective prevention interventions. These results led to the development of training and technical assistance materials.

Bridging Data and Decision Making: Development of Techniques for Improving the HIV Prevention Community Planning Process

“…Massachusetts has had more resources for supplementing the planning process in the past and more varied data sources than Texas; however, Texas has more data sources available than many smaller states, although there is some variation in the availability of different data within Texas. The core assessments of CPG members' impressions of the planning process were similar in both states Batchelor et al, 2005); however, the differences in planning structure led to the use of some different methodologies and differences in emphasis in terms of efforts to increase the use of data in the planning process.…”

“…Massachusetts has a single CPG for the entire state. CPG members in both states tend to come from service provider organizations, although the educational level of Massachusetts CPG members tends to be higher than in Texas, with more members having graduate degrees Batchelor et al, 2005). Massachusetts has had more resources for supplementing the planning process in the past and more varied data sources than Texas; however, Texas has more data sources available than many smaller states, although there is some variation in the availability of different data within Texas.…”

“…Below, we describe each site's efforts to apply their formative work to the development of tools and interventions to improve the use of data for decision making in their jurisdiction. The formative research is described in summary form here, however, more details regarding participants, methods, instruments, and findings are provided in Amaro et al (2005) and Batchelor et al (2005).…”

“…Respondents included health educators, outreach workers, prevention counselors, disease intervention specialists, supervisors and those who wrote the grants for health education, risk reduction and prevention counseling/partner elicitation programs. Demographic and other background characteristics are summarized in Batchelor et al (2005). A quantitative approach was used with prevention providers because of their large number and the diversity of services and populations they served.…”

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

“…Common factors that effect decision making which have been identified through this project include the quality of available data and its relevance to populations of interest (Amaro et al, 2005a;Batchelor et al, 2005a), the relevance of data to the planning tasks at hand (Amaro et al, 2005a;Batchelor et al, 2005a), the manner in which data are presented (Amaro et al, 2005a;Batchelor et al, 2005a), and organizational problems that limit the effectiveness of the groups (Amaro et al, 2005a;Batchelor et al, 2005a). Many of the barriers identified here have been observed in past case study evaluations of HIV prevention community planning (e.g., Kresse, 1995, 1996;Research Triangle Institute, 1999;Schietinger et al, 1995; United States Conference of Mayors, 1994Mayors, , 1998 and in other areas of policy-related decision making (e.g., Hammond, 1996;Weiss, 1980).…”