Program Management/Evaluation

The National Asthma Education Prevention Program's (NAEPP) Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR3) guidelines have stressed the need for environmental control measures for asthma, but there is limited evidence of their efficacy. To examine the effectiveness of an in-home asthma intervention program for children and adults in Connecticut, the Connecticut Department of Health conducted a panel study to analyze quality-of-life indicators for asthmatic patients and the cost–benefit relationship in preventive care versus acute care.

The Asthma Indoor Reduction Strategies (AIRS) program was developed to reduce acute asthma episodes and improve asthma control through patient education and a home environmental assessment. Follow-up was conducted at 2-week, 3-month, and 6-month intervals. Measured quality-of-life indicators included number of unscheduled acute care visits, days absent from school/work due to asthma, times rescue inhaler used, and number of symptom-free days. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether significant differences exist in quality-of-life indicators at follow-up compared to that at the initial visit. Cost–benefit analysis was conducted by tabulating costs associated with physician office visits and emergency department (ED) visits due to asthma for children and adults separately.

Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/eprint/eN253shxhBC2scjwiSNR/full?tokenKey=

Regarding composition of the teams, one critical difference between two types of teams will be the perspectives of the stakeholders. For the Strategic Evaluation Planning Team: · The stakeholders you engage should be the people who “think big picture” and are able to contribute in a meaningful way to discuss why a state asthma program is needed. · This team may include representatives of key partner and constituent groups, and members of this group may be involved with crafting the state plan and making decisions regarding the overall approach to addressing asthma in your state. · The primary product of the work conducted by this team is the Strategic Evaluation Plan as well as any updates to this plan. For the Individual Evaluation Planning Teams: · Include people directly engaged with the process/activity/product that is the focus of the evaluation. This team should be chosen to reflect the specific program knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to design a specific evaluation. · This team may, but does not need, to include one or more members of your strategic evaluation planning team. · These stakeholders should include those directly involved in operations or day-to-day administration and may also include recipients of the service or product. It is important to have one or more individuals on this team who are in the position to make enhancements or improvements, if indicated by the evaluation findings. · The primary product of this team is an Individual Evaluation Plan that refines and builds upon the general information provided in the evaluation profiles included in the Strategic Evaluation Plan. Some individuals on the evaluation planning team may also participate in implementing parts of the evaluation (e.g., collecting data, analyzing data, interpreting and sharing findings). As the evaluator, you will manage the feedback loop between the strategic evaluation plan and the individual evaluation plans. You will oversee how the strategic evaluation plan is implemented via the individual evaluation plans as well as how information from the individual evaluation planning process and the findings from those evaluations are used to revise the strategic evaluation plan. For example, based on their perspectives and information needs, the individual evaluation teams may try to steer the evaluation in a direction that would not meet the longer-term needs identified by the strategic planning group. In this instance, you may have to work with both teams to reconcile their visions for the evaluation. Similarly, the individual evaluations may identify new big-picture evaluation questions that the strategic evaluation planning team should consider. Providing frequent updates to all of your evaluation stakeholders, particularly those on the planning teams, will ensure that others can help you in your role as evaluation facilitator and negotiator. These updates need not always be formal or detailed; they merely need to keep stakeholders who are contributing their time and expertise “in the loop”. Updates also serve as an opportunity to acknowledge and thank participants for their contributions.

Evaluation is a significant part of assessing whether the Montana Asthma Control Program is reaching its goals. This 5 year strategic evaluation plan is a roadmap assessing the direction, feasibility, and significance of the projected projects and associated objectives.  Evaluation results will be used to feed information back into our initiatives about what is and is not working so
that changes can be made to improve outcomes and guide program development. The following plan includes information on specific activities that will be evaluated using the chosen evaluation design and timeline, as well as a communication plan to relay information on evaluation and outcomes of the evaluation. This is a living document that will be enhanced and updated annually to fit the growing needs of the MACP and its partners. As new projects are implemented, individual evaluation plans will be created to assess each major project. All MACP staff will remain involved in producing new individual plans and updating the strategic plan. MACP partners will also play an integral role in designing and implementing individual evaluation plans and updating the strategic plan as needed.