Implementation Evaluation
MANUSCRIPT CHECKLIST
General
The title accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.
The structured abstract accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.
The manuscript adds substantially to what is already known about the topic.
The article is of interest to PCD readers.
The article fits the mission of the journal to address the interface between applied evaluation and public health practice in chronic disease prevention.
The manuscript is clearly and concisely written and is free of jargon.
Each section of the manuscript — Introduction, Purpose and Objectives, Intervention Approach, Evaluation Methods, Results, and Implications for Public Health — includes the appropriate information. These sections are clearly delineated.
The citations are up to date and relevant.
All statements requiring citations have citations.
The Acknowledgments identify funding for the study.
The article has no more than 4,500 words, 40 references, 5 tables, and 4 figures.
Abstract
The abstract accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.
The abstract has the following subheadings: Purpose and Objectives, Intervention Approach, Evaluation Methods, Results, and Implications for Public Health.
The text has no more than 300 words.
Introduction
The public health area(s) of interest is described.
Purpose and rationale for the evaluation approach is justified by the literature and the circumstances under which implementation and evaluation activities occurred.
Project staff and partnerships responsible for conceptualizing, implementing, and evaluating efforts are described.
When and how long reported activities were implemented and evaluated are reported.
When data collection was initiated and completed are reported.
A literature review is provided to identify gaps in knowledge about the evaluation topic and show how the evaluation will add substantially to what is already known.
Definitions of terms specific to the context of the manuscript are provided.
Purpose and Objectives
Factors considered in developing the intervention are reported.
Components of the intervention are adequately described.
Specific objectives or evaluation questions are reported.
A clear explanation of the systematic planning process used to form the basis of what was implemented and evaluated is provided.
Details on how interested parties and partners were engaged to develop the program’s purpose and objectives are reported.
A brief description of the study setting and population is provided.
Factors that influence the intervention’s planning, implementation, and evaluation (eg, staff capacity, evaluation expertise, intervention fidelity) are fully discussed.
Intervention Approach
An intervention approach grounded in the literature and the intervention setting is described.
Information used to develop the intervention (eg, demographic shifts, attributes of study setting, input of partners and other interested parties, pilot studies) is provided.
Assumptions underlying how activities were selected are presented.
If validation of new and innovative measures is conducted as part of the study, they are described.
Intervention approach is appropriately linked to results, and outcomes (eg, indicators, measures) are adequately described to a general public health readership.
Figures or diagrams describing the intervention logically depict the interrelationship among key components being discussed.
Evaluation Methods
The type of evaluation method (eg, qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) used and the rationale for its selection are described.
The dates of the study are provided.
If the manuscript describes a return-on-investment design (eg, cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis), it includes a discussion of the evaluation method.
For evaluations that report use of a survey, the survey questions are provided.
The setting from which the participants are drawn (eg, general community, school, clinic, hospital, worksite) is described, including key sociodemographic features.
For participants in the evaluation, detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are provided, and recruitment of participants in the evaluation and sampling procedures are described.
If the manuscript describes evaluation involving human subjects, it includes a statement that the research was approved by an appropriate institutional review board.
The participation rate is provided and is satisfactory for the evaluation method used.
If controls are used, they are adequately described.
The sample size is appropriate to produce meaningful results.
A consistent cohort of study participants, for whom all data (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) are available, is used.
If a survey is used, state whether the survey instrument has been shown to have validity.
The statistical or qualitative methods are appropriately selected and explained.
The statistical or analytic software, if used, is identified.
Enough information is provided to enable an informed reader to replicate the evaluation.
Results
The main findings of the evaluation are provided.
Characteristics of the study participants are presented (eg, number, age distribution, sex, racial/ethnic characteristics).
The results are specific and relevant to objectives and evaluation questions.
For surveys, the response rate is provided, and information on how study participants might compare with people not included in the study is provided.
Measures of data distribution or precision (eg, SD, 95% CI) are given, if appropriate.
Implications for Public Health
A lengthy reiteration of the Results section is avoided.
The results pertaining to the objectives and evaluation questions are addressed objectively without speculation or overgeneralization.
Strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation are objectively evaluated.
Positive and negative findings of equal scientific merit are emphasized equally.
The conclusions drawn from the statistical or qualitative analyses are justified. Unexpected findings are mentioned, with suggested explanations.
Findings from the evaluation are compared with findings of similar published evaluation efforts.
Limitations of the evaluation are discussed.
The generalizability of the results is discussed.
Suggestions on how aspects of evaluation efforts can be used to shape future evaluation efforts in similar real-world settings are discussed.
The section ends with a clear, concise conclusion about facilitating diffusion and uptake of similar evidence-based interventions in a comparable real-world setting.
Data Tables and Figures
The tables and figures are well constructed, easy to comprehend, and visually appealing.
Information in the tables or figures is not duplicated in the text or in other tables or figures.
Information in the tables or figures is consistent with information in the text.
The tables and figures are able to stand independently; they do not require explanation from the text.
Illustrations in Other Media
Text transcriptions of video and audio files are provided.
Approval obtained to reproduce newspaper clippings or other print or Internet sources is provided.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.
