Translating the Public Health Action Plan
Into Action

Guidance for Task Groups
Task 5(b): Evaluating Impact

Evaluating Impact (b)

Action: Convene a planning committee for a "watershed" conference to address the science of evaluating public health programs for policy and environmental change.

Task: Plan a semi–annual conference to establish the need, impact, and research career opportunities in evaluation of such programs.

Outcome, April 2005: Report on plans for a conference to occur in 2005 or 2006.

Rationale

To implement the Action Plan by recognizing the importance of evaluation research addressing public health policies and programs for heart disease and stroke prevention. Evaluation research is an essential discipline in public health and preventive medicine and lacks sufficient institutional support, funding, and peer recognition, therefore, is not a career focus as is necessary for research to be adequately addressed. A watershed conference that presents the principles, methods, contributions, research agenda, and career potential can have significant impact in strengthening this much–needed field of research.

What Success Will Look Like

Plans for such a "watershed" conference would include a list of key participants (who will host the conference, speakers, discussion leaders, key parties to be invited); an agenda for the conference (specifics topics to be discussed, format for discussion); a list of set goals and expected outcomes of the conference; specific details for the conference (when the conference will take place, where it will take place, who will fund it); and a method for reporting the proceedings of the conference. Additionally, plans for the conference should outline important next steps so that the work of the participants is used to further progress in the implementation of the Action Plan.

This Task in the Larger Picture

The broader context of evaluating impact is shown in the attached summary. The potential links with the other themes of the Action Plan are illustrated by the following:

• Effective communication:  A more vigorous discipline of evaluation research for public health policies and programs will continually strengthen the scientific basis for heart disease and stroke prevention and will allow for more effective communication of progress made through policy interventions and the need for additional programs to further that progress.
   
• Strategic leadership, partnerships, and organization: Improved evaluation of policies and programs will lead to more informed leaderships, partnerships that are strategically created to develop policies and programs that address specific needs, and organizations that have a solid foundation on which to build their programs.
   
• Taking action: A proper scientific method of evaluation is vital to properly assess whether actions are yielding the desired results. Additionally, evaluating policies and programs can shape future actions by defining what specific goals have not been met by previous policies and programs.
   
• Strengthening capacity: A more universal method of evaluating the impact of policies and programs will lead to a more developed public health infrastructure and allow public health officials at the local, state, national, and global levels to develop common tools for assessing their interventions.
   
• Advancing knowledge: Much of the needed research will focus on developing new policies, programs, and interventions to reduce the incidence of heart disease and stroke. The products of this new research will need to be evaluated in a systematic fashion to assess the research applicability to public health and to guide future research initiatives.
   
• Engaging in regional and global partnerships: Systematic methods for evaluating programs and policies aimed at reducing heart disease and stroke will be useful in every community ranging from local health departments to the global population. Collaboration will allow for sharing of prior evaluation systems and rapid dissemination of newer, more useful methods for assessing outcomes of public health interventions.

Approach to the Task

While the approach to be taken should be determined by the leaders and members of the task group, the following suggested 10–step list may be helpful:

1. Define the scope of activity to be pursued through April 2005, within the overall statement of the task, above.
2. Prepare a preliminary outline of the anticipated report.
3. Identify the main source materials that will support the group’s work.
4. Take account of related work by others, whether completed or in progress.
5. Consider whether expertise or consultation beyond the task group will be needed, whether within the National Forum or beyond, and arrange to obtain the needed input.
6. Divide responsibilities for work components among all members of the group.
7. Use support staff to assist in logistics and communications.
8. Maintain frequent contact and monitor progress, including a cumulative record of meetings and accomplishments.
9. Draft the task group report.
10. Present the report to the 3rd National Forum, April 2005.

CDC Support Staff Contact Information

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion
Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention
4770 Buford Highway NE, MS K-47
Atlanta, GA 30341
Tele: 770–488–5504
Fax: 770–488–8151
Email: ccdinfo@cdc.gov
Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/hdsp/

The Context of the Concrete Tasks
Task 5(a) and 5(b): Evaluating Impact

(a) Action: Bring key partners and stakeholders together to address gaps in heart disease and stroke–related data systems.

Concrete Task: Identify data requirements and gaps and propose remedies to insure optimum data collection, management, and reporting.

Expected Outcome: Present proposals for improved heart disease and stroke–related health data systems.

(b) Action: Convene a planning committee for a "watershed" conference to address the science of evaluating public health programs for policy and environmental change.

Concrete Task: Plan a semi–annual conference to establish the need, impact, and research career opportunities in evaluation of such programs.

Expected Outcome: Report on plans for such a conference to take place in 2005 or 2006.

Tasks 5a and 5b are 2 of 8 tasks for the National Forum to implement during the current year. These tasks emerged from 2 priority action statements for evaluating impact designated by Working Group 4 in January 2004. These action statements are:

• Convene public health agencies to determine what is needed to fill identified CVH–related information gaps (e.g., surveillance systems) and establish a planning committee of National Forum members to select and convene key experts.
   
• Develop guidelines for evaluating content and format of public health programs in heart disease and stroke prevention, especially those on policy and environmental change.
   

These tasks and their related priority action steps were developed from the following recommendations in the full Action Plan:

"Expand and standardize populationwide evaluation and surveillance data sources and activities to assure adequate assessment of CVD indicators and change in the nation's CVD burden. Examples include mortality, incidence, prevalence, disability, selected biomarkers, risk factors and risk behaviors, economic burden, community and environmental characteristics, current policies and programs, and sociodemographic factors (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, sex, and ZIP code)."

"Establish a network of data systems for evaluating policy and program interventions that can track the progress of evolving best practices and signal the need for changes in policies and programs over time. This network would support the full development, collection, and analysis of the data needed to examine program effectiveness."

The background of these tasks can be found in A Public Health Action Plan to Prevent Heart Disease and Stroke in Section 2. A Comprehensive Public Health Strategy, Section 3. Recommendations, and Section 4. Implementation.

|Go to Task 6

Date last reviewed: 05/12/2006
Content source: Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion