Sarah Bowen1, Patricia J Martens. 1. Department of Community Health Sceince, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Division of Research and Applied Learning, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, 1800-155 Carleton Street, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, R3C 4Y1. sbowen@wrha.mb.ca
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Manitoba's The Need to Know project was presented with a unique opportunity to develop a collaborative approach to evaluation, and to explore the effectiveness of a variety of evaluation methods for assessment of university-community collaborative health research partnerships. OBJECTIVES: The evaluation was designed to incorporate participation of community partners in planning, developing, and evaluating all aspects of the project. Objectives included: (a) assessment of extent to which the project met its initial objectives; (b) assessment of extent participants needs and expectations were met; (c) refinement of evaluation questions; (d) identification of unanticipated impacts; (e) assessment of participant confidence as research team members; (f) development of knowledge translation theory; and (g) component analysis. METHODS: A "utilisation focused" approach was used. Primary stakeholders identified evaluation questions of concern, and how findings would be used. The multimethod time series design incorporated key informant interviews, a pre/post-test survey, written workshop evaluations, and participant and unobtrusive observation. All aspects of the evaluation were made transparent to participants, and formal feedback processes were instituted. RESULTS: There was a high level of participation in evaluation activities. Identifying evaluation questions of concern to community partners helped shape project development. While all methods provided useful information, only key informant interviews, participant observation and feedback processes provided insights into all evaluation objectives. CONCLUSION: Collaborative evaluation can make an important contribution to development of university-community partnerships. Qualitative methods (particularly key informant interviews, participant observation, and feedback processes) provided the richest source of data, and made an important contribution to team development.
INTRODUCTION: Manitoba's The Need to Know project was presented with a unique opportunity to develop a collaborative approach to evaluation, and to explore the effectiveness of a variety of evaluation methods for assessment of university-community collaborative health research partnerships. OBJECTIVES: The evaluation was designed to incorporate participation of community partners in planning, developing, and evaluating all aspects of the project. Objectives included: (a) assessment of extent to which the project met its initial objectives; (b) assessment of extent participants needs and expectations were met; (c) refinement of evaluation questions; (d) identification of unanticipated impacts; (e) assessment of participant confidence as research team members; (f) development of knowledge translation theory; and (g) component analysis. METHODS: A "utilisation focused" approach was used. Primary stakeholders identified evaluation questions of concern, and how findings would be used. The multimethod time series design incorporated key informant interviews, a pre/post-test survey, written workshop evaluations, and participant and unobtrusive observation. All aspects of the evaluation were made transparent to participants, and formal feedback processes were instituted. RESULTS: There was a high level of participation in evaluation activities. Identifying evaluation questions of concern to community partners helped shape project development. While all methods provided useful information, only key informant interviews, participant observation and feedback processes provided insights into all evaluation objectives. CONCLUSION: Collaborative evaluation can make an important contribution to development of university-community partnerships. Qualitative methods (particularly key informant interviews, participant observation, and feedback processes) provided the richest source of data, and made an important contribution to team development.
Authors: Karen Golden-Biddle; Trish Reay; Steve Petz; Christine Witt; Ann Casebeer; Amy Pablo; C R Bob Hinings Journal: J Health Serv Res Policy Date: 2003-10
Authors: Amy Drahota; Rosemary D Meza; Brigitte Brikho; Meghan Naaf; Jasper A Estabillo; Emily D Gomez; Sarah F Vejnoska; Sarah Dufek; Aubyn C Stahmer; Gregory A Aarons Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Bernard Ck Choi; Mary Lou Decou; Drona Rasali; Patricia J Martens; Michelina Mancuso; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Cory Neudorf; Joanne Thanos; Lawrence W Svenson; Keith Denny; Heather Orpana; Paula Stewart; Michael King; Jane Griffith; Tannis Erickson; Renate van Dorp; Deanna White; Amira Ali Journal: Arch Public Health Date: 2014-01-22
Authors: Murat Sartas; Piet van Asten; Marc Schut; Mariette McCampbell; Moureen Awori; Perez Muchunguzi; Moses Tenywa; Sylvia Namazzi; Ana Sole Amat; Graham Thiele; Claudio Proietti; Andre Devaux; Cees Leeuwis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Donna Patricia Manca; Denise Campbell-Scherer; Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Kami Kandola; Carolina Aguilar; Julia Baxter; Christopher Meaney; Ginetta Salvalaggio; June C Carroll; Vee Faria; Candace Nykiforuk; Eva Grunfeld Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 7.327