Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31221120›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Evaluability assessment of "growing healthy communities," a mini-grant program to improve access to healthy foods and places for physical activity.

Christiaan G Abildso, Angela Dyer, Shay M Daily, Thomas K Bias

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Community-Driven Health Promotion: Evaluation of a Rural Microgrant Program.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christiaan G AbildsoWest Virginia University School of Public Health, 64 Medical Center Drive, PO Box 9190, Morgantown, WV, 26506-9190, USA. cgabildso@hsc.wvu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1972-2348
Angela DyerWest Virginia University School of Public Health, 64 Medical Center Drive, PO Box 9190, Morgantown, WV, 26506-9190, USA.
Shay M DailyUniversity of Southern Maine, Portland, ME, 04104, USA.
Thomas K BiasWest Virginia University School of Public Health, 64 Medical Center Drive, PO Box 9190, Morgantown, WV, 26506-9190, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMini-grants have been used to stimulate multisector collaboration in support of public health initiatives by funding non-traditional partners, such as economic development organizations. Such mini-grants have the potential to increase access to healthy foods and places for physical activity through built environment change, especially in small and rural towns in the United States. Although a promising practice, few mini-grant evaluations have been done. Therefore, our purpose was to conduct an Evaluability Assessment (EA), which is a process that can help promising programs that lack evidence advance toward full-scale evaluation. Specifically, we conducted an Evaluability Assessment of a statewide mini-grant program, called "Growing Healthy Communities" (GHC), to determine if this program was ready for evaluation and identify any changes needed for future implementation and evaluation that could also inform similar programs.

methodsTelephone interviews with directors of six past mini-grant recipient organizations were conducted to assess implementation and evaluability. The six interviews were split equally among agencies receiving funding for food-oriented projects and physical activity-oriented projects. Within- and cross-case thematic analyses of interview transcripts were conducted.

resultsOrganizational capacity was a universal theme, reflecting other key themes (described in detail in the manuscript) that affected program implementation and evaluation, including collaboration, limited time and measurement integration.

conclusionsThe EA process provided pilot data that suggest that other state, regional, and national funders should provide centralized assistance for data collection and evaluation from the outset of a mini-grant award program.

Indexed as

Financing, OrganizedSocial PlanningBuilt EnvironmentExerciseFood SupplyHumansProgram EvaluationPublic HealthQualitative ResearchWest VirginiaBuilt environmentCommunity financingMini-grantsPublic healthRural development

Identifiers

PMID31221120
PMCPMC6585124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.