||Link to a PDF document
||Link to non-governmental site and does not
necessarily represent the views of the CDC
Acrobat (TM) Reader needs to be installed on
your computer in order to read documents in PDF format.
Download the Reader.
|Intervention Plan Data
- For intervention plans, should jurisdictions estimate clients or
Ideally, the best estimate for unduplicated clients to be served by the
particular intervention should be reported. However, contacts are acceptable
for outreach only. For all data collection by intervention, jurisdictions
should do their best to collect unduplicated client counts.
- If community planning considers scientific evidence and justification
when prioritizing interventions, and the health department then funds these
interventions, does this meet requirements for scientific evidence and
justification for intervention plans? Or are grantees expected to submit
additional information on scientific evidence and justification?
CDCís Guidance on HIV Prevention Community Planning (1998), calls for
CPGs to prioritize populations at high risk for HIV and to prioritize
culturally and linguistically appropriate interventions for them.
Criteria to be considered in prioritizing interventions include outcome
effectiveness; relative costs and effectiveness; sound scientific theory
when outcome effectiveness information is lacking; and values, norms,
and preferences of the communities for whom services are intended. The
Guidance states, "At a minimum, the community planning groups must
provide a clear, concise, logical statement as to why each population
and intervention given high priority was chosen."
With this in mind, intervention plans that include populations and
interventions based on the priorities set in the comprehensive HIV
prevention plan will meet the requirements for "evidence or theory basis
for the intervention." This is the very minimum criterion for
asserting the evidence or theory basis for the intervention.
However, the community planning process will most likely not go into
enough detail to provide evidence to justify application to the target
population AND setting. In order to assert justification for the target
population and setting, CDC prefers that health departments request
logic models or depictions of program theory from applicants and/or
grantees that show the proposed relationship between the intervention
and expected outcomes for the particular target population in a
Health departments that have Requests for Proposals (e.g., requests
for applications, invitations to negotiate, etc.) that ask applicants to
specifically discuss the evidence or theory basis of proposed
interventions as well as justification for application to the target
population and setting will meet requirements for scientific evidence
and justification. In addition, if the RFPs also ask applicants to
specifically discuss factors relating to the sufficiency of the service
delivery plan (e.g., provider training and supervision, quality
assurance and accountability mechanisms), this, too, will meet the
requirements for sufficiency of the service delivery plan.
If the criteria above are met, grantees should not be expected to
submit additional information.
- What are the minimum bounds of acceptability for scientific evidence
and justification for intervention plans. What would be an example?
Chapter 3 of the Evaluation Guidance contains discussion of how to
assess the interventionís evidence basis and how to assess the
interventionís justification to the target population and setting. There
is also discussion on how to determine the sufficiency of the service
plan. More extensive discussion is found in Chapter 3 of Volume 2:
Supplemental Handbook. CDCís Guidance on community planning, referenced
above, is another source of information on factors to consider in
As noted above, the minimum bound of acceptability for scientific
evidence is compliance with the CPG-approved priorities in the
comprehensive prevention plan. However, the minimum bound of
acceptability for justification is a logic model or program theory
description that shows the relationship between the intervention and
expected outcomes for the particular target population in a particular
setting. If health department grantees were funded based on applications
that provided a high quality discussion of the evidence or theory basis
of interventions and justification to the target population in a
particular setting, then those descriptions are acceptable.
- What should one do if the intervention changes after it has been
funded? Should health departments submit revised intervention plans? What
are the implications for comparing intervention plan and process monitoring
The intervention plan data that health departments submit to CDC may
be considered "benchmark" data for health departments and CBOs to use to
set the stage for process evaluation; that is, understanding how and why
process monitoring data differ from intervention plan data. If process
monitoring data reveal that fewer (or even more) clients are being
served than anticipated by intervention plan data or that different
populations are being reached than those originally targeted, this is
useful information to use to modify interventions to realistically meet
client needs. This information should then be used to set more realistic
plans for the next year.
If, for example, an intervention is dropped and another one added for
a target population, this information should not be submitted to CDC.
Health departments should not submit revised intervention plan data to
CDC. Intervention plan data are to be submitted only once a year.
CDC recognizes that intervention plans change and a strict comparison
of intervention plan and process monitoring data would often show major
differences between the two sets of data.
- What is to be written in the "Notes/Comments Field" on intervention
As the Evaluation Guidance indicates, the "Notes/Comments Field" is
an optional field health departments may use to provide explanation,
clarification, or additional information about the data provided on the
form. Health departments are not required to provide notes or comments.