• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Engaging partners to initiate evaluation efforts: tactics used and lessons learned from the prevention research centers program.吸引合作伙伴开展评估工作:预防研究中心项目所采用的策略及经验教训
Prev Chronic Dis. 2008 Jan;5(1):A21. Epub 2007 Dec 15.
2
Evaluating Policy, Systems, and Environmental Change Interventions: Lessons Learned From CDC's Prevention Research Centers.评估政策、系统和环境变化干预措施:从美国疾病控制与预防中心预防研究中心吸取的经验教训
Prev Chronic Dis. 2015 Oct 15;12:E174. doi: 10.5888/pcd12.150281.
3
Community engagement in Prevention Research: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers' National Community Committee.社区参与预防研究:疾病控制与预防中心的预防研究中心全国社区委员会
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2009 Spring;3(1):73-81. doi: 10.1353/cpr.0.0047.
4
The value of engaging stakeholders in planning and implementing evaluations.让利益相关者参与评估规划和实施的价值。
AIDS Educ Prev. 2002 Jun;14(3 Suppl A):5-17. doi: 10.1521/aeap.14.4.5.23878.
5
The Prevention Research Centers Healthy Aging Research Network.预防研究中心健康老龄化研究网络
Prev Chronic Dis. 2006 Jan;3(1):A17. Epub 2005 Dec 15.
6
Lessons learned from the first year of implementation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's standardized evaluation system for HIV prevention programs.从疾病控制与预防中心针对艾滋病预防项目的标准化评估系统实施的第一年中吸取的经验教训。
AIDS Educ Prev. 2002 Jun;14(3 Suppl A):49-58. doi: 10.1521/aeap.14.4.49.23877.
7
The evolution of the CDC HIV prevention capacity-building assistance initiative.美国疾病控制与预防中心艾滋病预防能力建设援助倡议的演变
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2007 Jan;Suppl:S8-15. doi: 10.1097/00124784-200701001-00004.
8
Using concept mapping to develop a logic model for the Prevention Research Centers Program.运用概念图为预防研究中心项目开发逻辑模型。
Prev Chronic Dis. 2006 Jan;3(1):A06. Epub 2005 Dec 15.
9
Improving integration and coordination of funding, technical assistance, and reporting/data collection: recommendations from CDC and USAPI stakeholders.改善资金、技术援助以及报告/数据收集的整合与协调:美国疾病控制与预防中心及美国国际开发署参与方的建议
Pac Health Dialog. 2011 Mar;17(1):185-97.
10
National-level capacity-building assistance model to enhance HIV prevention for Asian & Pacific Islander communities.提升亚太岛民社区艾滋病毒预防工作的国家级能力建设援助模式。
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2007 Jan;Suppl:S40-8. doi: 10.1097/00124784-200701001-00008.

引用本文的文献

1
The role of researchers in disseminating evidence to public health practice settings: a cross-sectional study.研究人员在向公共卫生实践环境传播证据中的作用:一项横断面研究。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Jun 10;14(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0113-4.
2
State-of-the-art and future directions in multilevel interventions across the cancer control continuum.癌症控制连续统一体中多层次干预的现状与未来方向。
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012 May;2012(44):20-31. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs006.
3
Reaiming RE-AIM: using the model to plan, implement, and evaluate the effects of environmental change approaches to enhancing population health.重新调整 RE-AIM 模型:利用该模型来规划、实施和评估环境变化方法对增强人口健康的效果。
Am J Public Health. 2010 Nov;100(11):2076-84. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.190959. Epub 2010 Sep 23.
4
Farmworkers at the border: a bilingual initiative for occupational health and safety.边境地区的农场工人:一项职业健康与安全的双语倡议。
Public Health Rep. 2009 Jul-Aug;124 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):143-51. doi: 10.1177/00333549091244S116.

本文引用的文献

1
Assessing prevention research impact: a bibliometric analysis.评估预防研究的影响:一项文献计量分析。
Am J Prev Med. 2006 Mar;30(3):211-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.10.025.
2
Using concept mapping to develop a logic model for the Prevention Research Centers Program.运用概念图为预防研究中心项目开发逻辑模型。
Prev Chronic Dis. 2006 Jan;3(1):A06. Epub 2005 Dec 15.
3
Prevention Research Centers: contributions to updating the public health workforce through training.预防研究中心:通过培训为更新公共卫生劳动力做出的贡献。
Prev Chronic Dis. 2005 Apr;2(2):A26. Epub 2005 Mar 15.
4
Health promotion and disease prevention research centers special interest projects competitive supplements. Notice.健康促进与疾病预防研究中心特别兴趣项目竞争性补充。通知。
Fed Regist. 2004 Mar 25;69(58):15439-67.
5
The value of engaging stakeholders in planning and implementing evaluations.让利益相关者参与评估规划和实施的价值。
AIDS Educ Prev. 2002 Jun;14(3 Suppl A):5-17. doi: 10.1521/aeap.14.4.5.23878.
6
Framework for program evaluation in public health.公共卫生项目评估框架。
MMWR Recomm Rep. 1999 Sep 17;48(RR-11):1-40.
7
Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health.基于社区的研究综述:评估改善公众健康的伙伴关系方法。
Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173-202. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173.

吸引合作伙伴开展评估工作:预防研究中心项目所采用的策略及经验教训

Engaging partners to initiate evaluation efforts: tactics used and lessons learned from the prevention research centers program.

作者信息

Wright Demia Sundra, Anderson Lynda A, Brownson Ross C, Gwaltney Margaret K, Scherer Jennifer, Cross Alan W, Goodman Robert M, Schwartz Randy, Sims Tom, White Carol R

机构信息

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Mailstop K-45, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.

出版信息

Prev Chronic Dis. 2008 Jan;5(1):A21. Epub 2007 Dec 15.

PMID:18082010
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2248792/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Program underwent a 2-year evaluation planning project using a participatory process that allowed perspectives from the national community of PRC partners to be expressed and reflected in a national logic model.

CONTEXT

The PRC Program recognized the challenge in developing a feasible, useable, and relevant evaluation process for a large, diverse program. To address the challenge, participatory and utilization-focused evaluation models were used.

METHODS

Four tactics guided the evaluation planning process: 1) assessing stakeholders' communication needs and existing communication mechanisms and infrastructure; 2) using existing mechanisms and establishing others as needed to inform, educate, and request feedback; 3) listening to and using feedback received; and 4) obtaining adequate resources and building flexibility into the project plan to support multifaceted mechanisms for data collection.

CONSEQUENCES

Participatory methods resulted in buy-in from stakeholders and the development of a national logic model. Benefits included CDC's use of the logic model for program planning and development of a national evaluation protocol and increased expectations among PRC partners for involvement. Challenges included the time, effort, and investment of program resources required for the participatory approach and the identification of whom to engage and when to engage them for feedback on project decisions.

INTERPRETATION

By using a participatory and utilization-focused model, program partners positively influenced how CDC developed an evaluation plan. The tactics we used can guide the involvement of program stakeholders and help with decisions on appropriate methods and approaches for engaging partners.

摘要

背景

美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)的预防研究中心(PRC)项目开展了一项为期两年的评估规划项目,采用了参与式流程,使PRC合作伙伴全国社区的观点得以表达,并反映在一个全国性的逻辑模型中。

背景情况

PRC项目认识到为一个庞大、多样的项目制定可行、可用且相关的评估流程面临挑战。为应对这一挑战,采用了以参与和利用为重点的评估模型。

方法

四项策略指导了评估规划过程:1)评估利益相关者的沟通需求以及现有的沟通机制和基础设施;2)利用现有机制,并根据需要建立其他机制,以提供信息、开展教育并征求反馈意见;3)倾听并利用收到的反馈意见;4)获取充足资源,并在项目计划中建立灵活性,以支持多方面的数据收集机制。

结果

参与式方法获得了利益相关者的认可,并促成了一个全国性逻辑模型的开发。好处包括CDC将逻辑模型用于项目规划和制定全国性评估方案,以及PRC合作伙伴对参与的期望增加。挑战包括参与式方法所需的时间、精力和项目资源投入,以及确定就项目决策征求反馈意见时应让哪些人参与以及何时让他们参与。

解读

通过使用以参与和利用为重点的模型,项目合作伙伴对CDC制定评估计划的方式产生了积极影响。我们使用的策略可以指导项目利益相关者的参与,并有助于就吸引合作伙伴的适当方法和途径做出决策。