Planning and implementation of a participatory evaluation strategy: A viable approach in the evaluation of community-based participatory programs addressing cancer disparities

Abstract

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been posited as a promising methodology to address health concerns at the community level, including cancer disparities. However, the major criticism to this approach is the lack of scientific grounded evaluation methods to assess development and implementation of this type of research. This paper describes the process of development and implementation of a participatory evaluation framework within a CBPR program to reduce breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer disparities between African Americans and whites in Alabama and Mississippi as well as lessons learned. The participatory process involved community partners and academicians in a fluid process to identify common ground activities and outcomes. The logic model, a lay friendly approach, was used as the template and clearly outlined the steps to be taken in the evaluation process without sacrificing the rigorousness of the evaluation process. We have learned three major lessons in this process: (1) the importance of constant and open dialogue among partners; (2) flexibility to make changes in the evaluation plan and implementation; and (3) importance of evaluators playing the role of facilitators between the community and academicians. Despite the challenges, we offer a viable approach to evaluation of CBPR programs focusing on cancer disparities.

Mujer Sana, Familia Fuerte: The Effects of a Culturally-Relevant, Community-Based, Promotores Program to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening among Latinas

“…25–27 Participants were asked to state their agreement (i.e., “I disagree,” “I am not sure,” “I agree”) with each of four statements, such as “Pap tests are important for a woman your age.” Negatively stated items were reverse coded, and a mean score was calculated, with a higher score indicating a more positive attitude.…”

“…26,27 Participants responded to each item (e.g., “You can get a health care professional to give you a Pap test”), using a three-point scale ranging from “I am not sure” to “I am sure.” The mean of all items was used as the self-efficacy score.…”

Training Partnership Dyads for Community-Based Participatory Research

“…We have continued to improve the evaluation process over time, and now use a modified RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework (Glasgow, Klesges, Dzewaltowski, Estabrooks, & Vogt, 2006) to guide our evaluation. A logic model (Fielden et al, 2007; Sanchez, Carrillo, & Wallerstein, 2011; Sandoval et al, 2012; Scarinci, Johnson, Hardy, Marron, & Partridge, 2009) in Figure 1 summarizes the overall plan.

Reach : To evaluate reach of the CES-P, we monitor (a) number/types of participants that inquire about the program (via phone, e-mail, and/or information sessions) and their representative organizations; (b) number/types of participants that apply for the program and their representative organizations; and (c) types of participants that are selected, including organizations, areas of health interest, experience in CBPR, and previous history/ experience of the CBPR partnerships.

Effectiveness : To evaluate effectiveness of the CES-P, we use standardized evaluation tools for each training session (content, expertise of speakers, usefulness, etc.

…”

Community-based participatory research in complex settings: clean mind-dirty hands

“…Community participation is of particular value in an established participatory evaluation framework (Scarinci et al, 2009). Saunders et al (Saunders et al, 2005) define basic elements of a comprehensive evaluation as fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, reach, recruitment and context, which measure the degree to which a programme has been delivered as intended.…”