Evaluation Strategy. The goal of the evaluation is to assess the impact of the AMS fellowship on resident and staff knowledge, skills, and attitudes; on patient and family satisfaction; and on organizational culture. Residents will be evaluated using a quasi-experimental before-and-after study design. As illustrated in Figure 1, these findings will be used to inform subsequent educational and quality-improvement initiatives. Quantity of EOL teaching will be tracked, and changes in resident knowledge and attitudes related to EOL care will be measured using a self-assessment tool based on the Educating Future Physicians in Palliative and End-of-Life Care (EFPPEC) competencies (available at xxx.xxxxxx.xx), a knowledge test, and the Block and Xxxxxx Attitudes about EOL Care Scale. Educational Experiences Quality Improvement Initiatives AMS Fellow Role model Opinion Leader Resident knowledge, attitudes, skills, self-assessment Staff attitudes Organizational Culture The AMS evaluation will be unique in its ability to link measures of residents’ EOL knowledge and attitudes to patient and family feedback on care through the use of the CANHELP questionnaire, a validated Canadian tool to measure satisfaction with EOL care. This will be an important strategy to provide feedback for individual sites. Summary Using change strategies known to make a difference in clinical outcomes,14 the multifaceted interventions of the AMS Fellowship in EOL Care has a high probability of improving care for dying patients in clinical teaching units. The evaluation of the fellowship provides assessment of its impact (summative) while assisting in the refinement of the exemplary models of EOL care (formative). It is anticipated that the lessons learned from the fellowship will be applicable to other hospital settings across Canada. Xx. Xxxxx is a family physician with certification in Care of the Elderly and works in Division of Geriatric Medicine and with palliative care at Queen’s University. References
Evaluation Strategy. A quasi-experimental study design was used to evaluate the program’s potential effects. World Vision allocated one section and its villages in the Bum Chiefdom World Vision Area Development Program (ADP) as the intervention group while a second section in its Bum Chiefdom ADP was allocated as the comparison group. Villages in the intervention section received the grandmother-inclusive approach in addition to the standard of care provided by the Ministry of Health and World Vision (MOH/WV) which included World Vision’s nutrition education model of timed and targeted counseling. Villages in the control section, received only the MOH/WV program of timed and targeting counseling. Project evaluation utilized quantitative data collected through repeat cross-sectional surveys at baseline (January-March 2013) and endline (May 2016) in control and intervention sections. Endline Survey Tool The endline survey was created in partnership with Emory University and World Vision International. The survey queried respondents on knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding maternal and child nutrition. Key maternal nutrition practices assessed include 1) eating more, 2) working less, and 3) receiving and consuming iron and folic acid tablets and vitamin A during pregnancy. Breastfeeding practices include 1) initiation and maintenance of early exclusive breastfeeding, 2) duration of exclusive breastfeeding using 24-hour and since birth recall methods, and 3) duration of any breastfeeding. Complementary feeding practices of infants include 1) consumption of semi-solid, soft foods at 6-8 months; 2) meal frequency; 3) dietary diversity 4) feeding practices of children while ill, and 5) receipt of vitamin A supplementation and provision of iron drops. Current pregnancy and/or obstetric history data including ANC uptake, delivery location, complications during delivery and birthweight were collected to assess the outcomes above. Additional outcomes assessed focused on sources of information and kinds of advice given to women of reproductive age (WRA) by GMs and other community members on nutrition and infant feeding and uptake and participation in program activities.
Evaluation Strategy. As the aims in 2.2 are all risks to the College in fulfilling its obligations around Access and Participation in HE, an Access and Participation Risk Register has been devised that will assess progress “live” on targets and other key actions on improving data capture. The risk register will draw on an emerging internal Access and Participation dataset which will embed monitoring within the College. A risk register is also appropriate as the College is a newcomer to the evaluation of Access Agreements/Access and Participation Plans, so it is difficult to perform a self-assessment of evaluation prior to this plan. This Risk Register is the primary means by which the impact of individual strategic measures will be assessed and will be regularly updated by the Director of HE, in line with adjustments to interventions during the life of this plan. It will be reviewed in HE Performance Reviews and at College HE Board (approximately seven times per year) as described in 3.4 where adjustments will be discussed and agreed. This will facilitate a continuous improvement of strategic measures as the risk register will be a live document. Review of the risk register (broadly encompassing 3.4.1 to 3.4.4) will then lead to potential adjustments and alterations in the strategic measures.
Evaluation Strategy. This subsection must include the evaluation strategy for the intervention. The application must identify the evaluation methods to be used in the proposed project and any anticipated evaluation- related challenges. The review panelists will score proposals by the appropriateness of the proposed evaluation strategy and methods for proposed intervention project model. Evaluation strategies that allow for stronger attribution of causation, such as randomized studies, may score higher in this area than those without strategies that will enable researchers to attribute project impacts to the proposed intervention. However, all evaluation methods (including, but not limited to, qualitative, quantitative, participatory, mixed-methods, experimental, and quasi-experimental) are welcome and proposals will be judged by their overall completeness and quality. This subsection must also include a description of the data that will be collected for the proposed evaluation and any SSA data the applicant wishes to request from SSA for evaluation purposes. If an applicant’s recruitment, implementation, or evaluation strategies require SSA data, the application must clearly identify such needs in order for SSA to determine whether it will be possible to provide the data during the period of performance. Please note that SSA cannot share certain data (e.g., personally identifiable information) without prior consent from potential project participants, or applicable 5 xxxxx://xxxxx.xxx.xxx/ 6 xxxxx://xxx.xx.xxx/ncee/wwc/ 7 xxxxx://xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/ routine use authority (see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)), and cannot share certain data (e.g., third-party data) without additional permissions or at all. See Section VI.B.2. for additional information. This subsection should also include a description of how the evaluator will maintain independence from the group or groups tasked with implementation of the project involved in the project, as well as the evaluator’s experience in conducting evaluations of program effectiveness, including, where available, well-implemented evaluations of the intervention or similar interventions. Applicants will not be penalized if the lead organization has limited experience in conducting rigorous evaluations, as long as the proposal includes a partner that has such experience. Useful resources that might be helpful for organizations that have limited experience in conducting rigorous evaluations toward locating experienced evaluators include: • The ...
