ArticleInjury epidemiology2025
Engaging practitioners and academic researchers in co-developing evaluation measures for community violence interventions.
Article in Injury epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity violence intervention (CVI) is increasingly considered an important component of comprehensive public safety infrastructure, but research and evaluation of CVI programs remain underdeveloped. There is a critical need for evaluation measures that are developed collaboratively with those most proximate to these interventions and that capture interventions' nuanced and holistic impacts. This paper presents the process and results of a practitioner-academic partnership to co-develop youth-focused CVI evaluation measures in Washington state.
resultsThe process of co-developing evaluation measures involved two phases. For phase 1, we created a menu of quantitative measures (n = 60) for each outcome construct in a previously co-developed CVI theory of change by integrating existing measures, identified through a literature review, with insights and recommendations from CVI practitioners gathered during a workshop. For phase 2, we tailored and refined quantitative and qualitative measures with/for 7 CVI programs involved in the collaboration via individual meetings (n = 45 one-hour meetings over the course of 10 months, average = 6.4 meetings per program). The process of refining measures involved extensive discussion around several key considerations, including confidentiality, age appropriateness of questions, and language/jargon. After revisions, each CVI program had a customized list of quantitative and qualitative measures that fit their program and the population they served. We also created an online toolkit accompanying this paper so others may easily use, tailor, and build upon our work.
conclusionsOur process of co-developing youth-focused CVI evaluation measures drew from existing literature while heavily prioritizing the knowledge, expertise, and capacity of CVI practitioners. This helped facilitate power sharing and responsiveness to community needs, and we believe it resulted in more appropriate and contextually relevant measures. By detailing the iterative process that we took along with the resulting evaluation measures, our intent is to encourage practitioner-academic collaboration and underscore how such partnerships can enhance the field's understanding of CVI implementation and impacts.
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.