ArticleJournal of public health management and practice : JPHMP
Innovative Methods for Designing Actionable Program Evaluation.
Article in Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing Intimate Partner Violence to Improve Women's Preconception Health.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2018Article
- Catalyzing State Public Health Agency Actions to Prevent Injuries and Violence: Introductory Remarks.Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPArticle
- State Injury Programs' Response to the Opioid Epidemic: The Role of CDC's Core Violence and Injury Prevention Program.Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextFor most programs, whether funded through governmental agencies or nongovernmental organizations, demonstrating the impact of implemented activities is vital to ensuring continued funding and support.
objectiveProgram evaluation is a critical tool that serves the dual purpose of describing impact and identifying areas for program improvement. From a funder's perspective, describing the individual and collective impact of state-based programs can be challenging due to variations in strategies being implemented and types of data being collected.
designA case study was used to describe the actionable, mixed-methods evaluation of the Core Violence and Injury Prevention Program (Core VIPP), including how the evaluation design and approach shifted to address evolving challenges faced by award recipients over time. Particular emphasis is given to innovative methods for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data for key state and federal stakeholders.
resultsThe results of the Core VIPP evaluation showed how this funding played a vital role in building injury and violence prevention capacity in state health departments, leading to a decrease in both intermediate and long-term outcomes.
conclusionsThe lessons learned through the mixed-method evaluation of the Core VIPP informed the structure of the subsequent funding cycle (Core SVIPP) to include more prescriptive requirements for evidence-based implementation and a state support team structure for delivery of training and technical assistance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.