Priority setting for evaluation: Developing a strategic evaluation portfolio

Spilsbury, Mark; Norgbey, S.; Battaglino, C.

doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.05.008

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to the infrequency of large-scale disasters, health personnel have limited opportunities to learn and practice the analytical skills required to accurately document a response. This limitation may explain the lack of in-depth, quality insights contained in evaluation reports that have been acknowledged in the literature [ 13 , 27 ]. Several of the key papers identified in this review noted that embedded training has proven to be a useful method for familiarising staff with the procedures that should be enacted when responding to a disaster situation [ 3 , 22 , 23 , 28 ].…”

Section: Results and Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring and evaluation of disaster response efforts undertaken by local health departments: a rapid realist review

Gossip

Gouda

Lee

et al. 2017

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLocal health departments are often at the forefront of a disaster response, attending to the immediate trauma inflicted by the disaster and also the long term health consequences. As the frequency and severity of disasters are projected to rise, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) efforts are critical to help local health departments consolidate past experiences and improve future response efforts. Local health departments often conduct M&E work post disaster, however, many of these efforts fail to improve response procedures.MethodsWe undertook a rapid realist review (RRR) to examine why M&E efforts undertaken by local health departments do not always result in improved disaster response efforts. We aimed to complement existing frameworks by focusing on the most basic and pragmatic steps of a M&E cycle targeted towards continuous system improvements. For these purposes, we developed a theoretical framework that draws on the quality improvement literature to ‘frame’ the steps in the M&E cycle. This framework encompassed a M&E cycle involving three stages (i.e., document and assess, disseminate and implement) that must be sequentially completed to learn from past experiences and improve future disaster response efforts. We used this framework to guide our examination of the literature and to identify any context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations which describe how M&E may be constrained or enabled at each stage of the M&E cycle.ResultsThis RRR found a number of explanatory CMO configurations that provide valuable insights into some of the considerations that should be made when using M&E to improve future disaster response efforts. Firstly, to support the accurate documentation and assessment of a disaster response, local health departments should consider how they can: establish a culture of learning within health departments; use embedded training methods; or facilitate external partnerships. Secondly, to enhance the widespread dissemination of lessons learned and facilitate inter-agency learning, evaluation reports should use standardised formats and terminology. Lastly, to increase commitment to improvement processes, local health department leaders should possess positive leadership attributes and encourage shared decision making.ConclusionThis study is among the first to conduct a synthesis of the CMO configurations which facilitate or hinder M&E efforts aimed at improving future disaster responses. It makes a significant contribution to the disaster literature and provides an evidence base that can be used to provide pragmatic guidance for improving M&E efforts of local health departments.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2015:CRD42015023526.

show abstract

Section: Results and Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring and evaluation of disaster response efforts undertaken by local health departments: a rapid realist review

Gossip

Gouda

Lee

et al. 2017

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evaluation priorities are set in many ways, ranging from a simple list to more sophisticated approaches that combine different parameters, criteria, and evaluation tools [56]. The latter is the case where multiple criteria are used to select and prioritize problem-solving alternatives.…”

Section: Third Dimension: Prioritizingmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Can I Help You? Questioning the Role of Evaluation Techniques in Democratic Decision-Making Processes

Lami

Moroni

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past, evaluation techniques were considered to be “decisional techniques”, “decisional tools”. There was a rough idea that, after the important data had been collected, the technique in question would, by itself, indicate the best decision. Evaluations of this kind clearly depended on the more or less implicit adoption of a “rational-comprehensive model”, which tended to downplay the ethical and political dimension of decisions, while stressing the role of both technique and technicians. This approach has been widely criticized. Partly as a result of such criticism, many evaluation techniques are now considered to be not “decisional tools” but forms of “decision aid”. The problem is that the expression “decision aid” lacks clarity and is by no means unequivocal in urban decisional situations. We believe in this regard that there is a gap in research and in the academic literature. Starting from this conviction, the article presents an investigation of what being a “decision aid” might mean for a technical evaluation today. The aim is to provide a conceptual framework within which to critically revisit and rediscuss the question, with particular regard to urban sustainability issues.

show abstract

“…By expanding the definition of what constitutes relevant evidence to include “practice-based evidence” (Green, 2006) such as documenting campaigns, then synthesizing and translating this evidence into guidance that can inform policy and practice, health departments can leverage existing community assets to contribute to the expansion of upstream interventions. New methods for integrating diverse evidence including systematic reviews, knowledge mapping, rapid reviews, integrative reviews, portfolio reviews, and realist reviews (Baxter et al, 2014; Pawson, Greenhalgh, Harvey, & Walshe, 2005; Spilsbury, Norgbey, & Battaglino, 2014; Whittemore & Knafl, 2005) can guide this synthesis and translation and help measure the impact of these efforts.…”

Section: Toward Transformative Public Health Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

New Approaches for Moving Upstream

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growing evidence shows that unequal distribution of wealth and power across race, class, and gender produces the differences in living conditions that are "upstream" drivers of health inequalities. Health educators and other public health professionals, however, still develop interventions that focus mainly on "downstream" behavioral risks. Three factors explain the difficulty in translating this knowledge into practice. First, in their allegiance to the status quo, powerful elites often resist upstream policies and programs that redistribute wealth and power. Second, public health practice is often grounded in dominant biomedical and behavioral paradigms, and health departments also face legal and political limits on expanding their scope of activities. Finally, the evidence for the impact of upstream interventions is limited, in part because methodologies for evaluating upstream interventions are less developed. To illustrate strategies to overcome these obstacles, we profile recent campaigns in the United States to enact living wages, prevent mortgage foreclosures, and reduce exposure to air pollution. We then examine how health educators working in state and local health departments can transform their practice to contribute to campaigns that reallocate the wealth and power that shape the living conditions that determine health and health inequalities. We also consider health educators' role in producing the evidence that can guide transformative expansion of upstream interventions to reduce health inequalities.

show abstract

Priority setting for evaluation: Developing a strategic evaluation portfolio

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Monitoring and evaluation of disaster response efforts undertaken by local health departments: a rapid realist review

Monitoring and evaluation of disaster response efforts undertaken by local health departments: a rapid realist review

How Can I Help You? Questioning the Role of Evaluation Techniques in Democratic Decision-Making Processes

New Approaches for Moving Upstream

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About