Principles of Community Engagement (Second Edition)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

self- or interviewer-administered and conducted face-to-face or by telephone, by mail, or online Analysis of quantitative data involves statistical analysis, from basic descriptive statistics to complex analyses Quantitative data measure the depth and breadth of an implementation (e g , the number of people who participated, the number of people who completed the program) Quantitative data collected before and after an intervention can show its outcomes and impact The strengths of quantitative data for evaluation purposes include their generalizability (if the sample represents the population), the ease of analysis, and their consistency and precision (if collected reliably) The limitations of using quantitative data for evaluation can include poor response rates from surveys, difficulty obtaining documents, and difficulties in valid measurement In addition, quantitative data do not provide an understanding of the program’s context and may not be robust enough to explain complex issues or interactions (Holland et al , 2005; Garbarino et al , 2009) Qualitative Methods Qualitative data answer such questions as “What is the value added?”, “Who was responsible?”, and “When did something happen?’’ Qualitative data are collected through direct or participant observation, interviews, focus groups, and case studies and from written documents Analyses of qualitative data include examining, comparing and contrasting, and interpreting patterns Analysis will likely include the identification of themes, coding, clustering similar data, and reducing data to meaningful and important points, such as in grounded theory-building or other approaches to qualitative analysis (Patton, 2002) Observations may help explain behaviors as well as social context and meanings because the evaluator sees what is actually happening Observations can include watching a participant or program, videotaping an intervention, or even recording people who have been asked to “think aloud” while they work (Ericsson et al , 1993) Interviews may be conducted with individuals alone or with groups of people and are especially useful for exploring complex issues Interviews may be structured and conducted under controlled conditions, or they may be 175
The evaluation of community engagement may need both qualitative and quantitative methods because of the diversity of issues addressed conducted with a loose set of questions asked in an open-ended manner It may be helpful to tape-record interviews, with appropriate permissions, to facilitate the analysis of themes or content Some interviews have a specific focus, such as a critical incident that an individual recalls and describes in detail Another type of interview focuses on a person’s perceptions and motivations Focus groups are run by a facilitator who leads a discussion among a group of people who have been chosen because they have specific characteristics (e g , were clients of the program being evaluated) Focus group participants discuss their ideas and insights in response to open-ended questions from the facilitator The strength of this method is that group discussion can provide ideas and stimulate memories with topics cascading as discussion occurs (Krueger et al , 2000; Morgan, 1997) The strengths of qualitative data include providing contextual data to explain complex issues and complementing quantitative data by explaining the “why” and “how” behind the “what ” The limitations of qualitative data for evaluation may include lack of generalizability, the time-consuming and costly nature of data collection, and the difficulty and complexity of data analysis and interpretation (Patton, 2002) Mixed Methods The evaluation of community engagement may need both qualitative and quantitative methods because of the diversity of issues addressed (e g , population, type of project, and goals) The choice of methods should fit the need for the evaluation, its timeline, and available resources (Holland et al , 2005; Steckler et al , 1992) EVALUATING THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS In addition to ensuring that the community is engaged in the evaluation of a program, it is important to evaluate community engagement and its implementation The purpose of this type of evaluation is to determine if the process of developing, implementing, and monitoring an intervention or program is indeed participatory in nature 176
Page 1 and 2:
PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS CTSA Community En
Page 5 and 6:
Editorial and Research Staff Mina S
Page 7 and 8:
For further information on the CTSA
Page 9 and 10:
FOREWORD As Surgeon General, I am p
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary
Page 13 and 14:
of Veterans Affairs, and other fede
Page 15 and 16:
REFERENCES Ahmed SM, Palermo AG Com
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1 Community Engagement: Def
Page 19 and 20:
clinics, agencies, after-school pro
Page 21 and 22:
The eligibility criteria that scien
Page 23 and 24:
2 Design and delivery—Improvement
Page 25 and 26:
There is no question that culture a
Page 27 and 28:
oot causes of problems while at the
Page 29 and 30:
• Know the community, its constit
Page 31 and 32:
• Coalitions require that each pa
Page 33 and 34:
studies demonstrate that IRBs gener
Page 35 and 36:
action at those levels This approac
Page 37 and 38:
• S o c i e t y : Advocate for th
Page 39 and 40:
According to Rogers, the characteri
Page 41 and 42:
is the added value of CBPR to the r
Page 43 and 44:
• It is important to understand c
Page 45 and 46:
Butterfoss FD, Kegler MC (2002) Tow
Page 47 and 48:
Flicker S, Travers R, Guta A, McDon
Page 49 and 50:
Jones MR, Horner RD, Edwards LJ, Ho
Page 51 and 52:
Minkler M Community organizing and
Page 53 and 54:
Shore N Community-based participato
Page 55 and 56:
Yale Center for Clinical Investigat
Page 57 and 58:
Chapter 2 Principles of Community E
Page 59 and 60:
• Ask community members to specif
Page 61 and 62:
trust for a true partnership Such m
Page 63 and 64:
that affect health and health dispa
Page 65 and 66:
difference in the health of the pop
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 3 Successful Examples in th
Page 69 and 70:
59 TABLE 3.1. MATRIX OF CASE EXAMPL
Page 71 and 72:
a mission statement written in the
Page 73 and 74:
2. HEALTH-E-AME Background: The Med
Page 75 and 76:
3. PROJECT SUGAR Background: Gullah
Page 77 and 78:
Websites http://academicdepartments
Page 79 and 80:
of the community context, developme
Page 81 and 82:
5. HEALING OF THE CANOE Background:
Page 83 and 84:
6. FORMANDO NUESTRO FUTURO/SHAPING
Page 85 and 86:
7. IMPROVING AMERICAN INDIAN CANCER
Page 87 and 88:
and the mistreatment of some Americ
Page 89 and 90:
access to resources for healthy eat
Page 91 and 92:
9. THE DENTAL PRACTICE-BASED RESEAR
Page 93 and 94:
10. DIABETES EDUCATION & PREVENTION
Page 95 and 96:
11. PROJECT DULCE Background: Diabe
Page 97 and 98:
References Gilmer TP, Philis-Tsimik
Page 99 and 100:
milestones in child development, ch
Page 101 and 102:
Chapter 4 Managing Organizational S
Page 103 and 104:
engagement is not limited to coalit
Page 105 and 106:
Practice Element 1: Know the Commun
Page 107 and 108:
each capacity component for this pr
Page 109 and 110:
REFERENCES Butterfoss FD. Coalition
Page 111 and 112:
Table 4.1. Know the Community, Its
Page 113 and 114:
Table 4.3. Build and Sustain Networ
Page 115 and 116:
Challenges in Improving Community E
Page 117 and 118:
ecommended public health practices
Page 119 and 120:
community setting can be just as ri
Page 121 and 122:
These challenges do not compare, ho
Page 123 and 124:
halted its efforts to collect data
Page 125 and 126:
mechanisms for communication, the c
Page 127 and 128:
The researchers and the community b
Page 129 and 130: Horn K, McGloin T, Dino G, Manzo K,
Page 131 and 132: Take-Home Messages • Be explicit
Page 133 and 134: At meetings of the CAB, decisions w
Page 135 and 136: 3. WORKING WITH NONTRADITIONAL COMM
Page 137 and 138: B. How do you engage a state as a c
Page 139 and 140: to those applying for funds The eva
Page 141 and 142: 4. INITIATING A PROJECT WITH A COMM
Page 143 and 144: B. How do you set up and maintain a
Page 145 and 146: References Blumenthal DS A communit
Page 147 and 148: parties grew frustrated The partner
Page 149 and 150: 5. O VERCOMING COMPETING PRIORITIES
Page 151 and 152: Reference Reifsnider E, Hargraves M
Page 153 and 154: Take-Home Messages • “Splitting
Page 155 and 156: Although the CTSA sites in the Bost
Page 157 and 158: Chapter 6 The Value of Social Netwo
Page 159 and 160: Social networks can also play an im
Page 161 and 162: engagement effort, relationships mu
Page 163 and 164: engagement Furthermore, social medi
Page 165 and 166: REFERENCES Arthur T The role of soc
Page 167 and 168: Program Evaluation and Evaluating C
Page 169 and 170: approaches to evaluation that are p
Page 171 and 172: Several institutions have identifie
Page 173 and 174: Planning Defining and identifying s
Page 175 and 176: Once the positive outcome of a prog
Page 177 and 178: The major goal of empowerment evalu
Page 179: Table 7.1. Types of Evaluation Ques
Page 183 and 184: for understanding a community and i
Page 185 and 186: REFERENCES Anderson RM, Funnell MM,
Page 187 and 188: Patton MQ Qualitative evaluation an
Page 189 and 190: Chapter 8 Summary Donna Jo McCloske
Page 191 and 192: • Know the extent to which the fo
Page 193 and 194: Appendix A: Acronyms
Page 195 and 196: CDC Centers for Disease Control and
Page 197: NIH Publication No. 11-7782
show all

Principles of Community Engagement (Second Edition)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?