IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v90y2022ics0149718921000756.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The utility of evaluation in optimizing implementation and improvement of HIV prevention programming

Author

Listed:
  • Marshall, Brittany
  • Salabarría-Peña, Yamir
  • Douglas, Chelsea
  • Nakelsky, Shoshanna
  • Pichon, Latrice C.

Abstract

The objective of this article is to describe Project PrIDE (PrEP Implementation, Data to Care, and Evaluation) through the lens of Evaluation Utilization and provide examples of how twelve funded health departments (HD) utilized evaluation findings to make decisions related to improving PrEP awareness and uptake, and/or enhancing capacity for data to care (D2C) activities. Each HD conducted a local evaluation (LE) and reported ongoing and planned utilization of evaluation findings in the final LE reports. Information from all reports was abstracted for qualitative analysis to identify main evaluation utilization themes. Findings showed that program evaluation was incorporated as early as the project development phase and designed with the goal of improving, and not just demonstrating the efficacy of the programs. Evaluation data were effectively utilized to improve PrEP and D2C activities, for example, by increasing community engagement throughout LEs, enhancing social media implementation, prioritizing the most effective referral sources at re-linking clients into HIV care, reducing client wait time between receiving PrEP referral and obtaining appointment with provider, and incorporating evaluation findings into program planning and development. Project PrIDE highlights the importance of a planned evaluation in providing ongoing improvements to HIV prevention services to better serve priority populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Marshall, Brittany & Salabarría-Peña, Yamir & Douglas, Chelsea & Nakelsky, Shoshanna & Pichon, Latrice C., 2022. "The utility of evaluation in optimizing implementation and improvement of HIV prevention programming," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:90:y:2022:i:c:s0149718921000756
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101980
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718921000756
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101980?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williams, Allison M., 2010. "Evaluating Canada's Compassionate Care Benefit using a utilization-focused evaluation framework: Successful strategies and prerequisite conditions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 91-97, May.
    2. Flowers, Alice B., 2010. "Blazing an evaluation pathway: Lessons learned from applying utilization-focused evaluation to a conservation education program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 165-171, May.
    3. Jenny Briedenhann & Steve Butts, 2005. "Utilization‐Focused Evaluation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 22(2), pages 221-243, March.
    4. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kroufek, Roman & Cincera, Jan & Kolenaty, Miloslav & Zalesak, Jan & Johnson, Bruce, 2023. "“I had a spider in my mouth”: What makes students happy in outdoor environmental education programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Pascua, Liberty & Chang, Chew-Hung, 2015. "Using intervention-oriented evaluation to diagnose and correct students’ persistent climate change misconceptions: A Singapore case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 70-77.
    3. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    4. Burford, Gemma & Velasco, Ismael & Janoušková, Svatava & Zahradnik, Martin & Hak, Tomas & Podger, Dimity & Piggot, Georgia & Harder, Marie K., 2013. "Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-14.
    5. LaVelle, John M. & Davies, Randall, 2021. "Seeking consensus: Defining foundational concepts for a graduate level introductory program evaluation course," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    6. Melz, Heidi & Fromknecht, Anne E. & Masters, Loren D. & Richards, Tammy & Sun, Jing, 2023. "Incorporating multiple data sources to assess changes in organizational capacity in child welfare systems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Wingate, Lori A. & Smith, Nick L. & Perk, Emma, 2018. "The project vita: A dynamic knowledge management tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 22-27.
    8. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    9. Arbour, Ghislain, 2020. "Teaching programme evaluation: A problem of knowledge," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    10. Jan Činčera & Grzegorz Mikusiński & Bohuslav Binka & Luis Calafate & Cristina Calheiros & Alexandra Cardoso & Marcus Hedblom & Michael Jones & Alex Koutsouris & Clara Vasconcelos & Katarzyna Iwińska, 2019. "Managing Diversity: The Challenges of Inter-University Cooperation in Sustainability Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    12. Crohn, Kara & Birnbaum, Matthew, 2010. "Environmental education evaluation: Time to reflect, time for change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 155-158, May.
    13. Susan Roelofs & Nancy Edwards & Sarah Viehbeck & Cody Anderson, 2019. "Formative, embedded evaluation to strengthen interdisciplinary team science: Results of a 4-year, mixed methods, multi-country case study," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 37-50.
    14. Picciotto, Robert, 2019. "Is evaluation obsolete in a post-truth world?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 88-96.
    15. Kupiec, Tomasz, 2022. "Does evaluation quality matter? Quantitative analysis of the use of evaluation findings in the field of cohesion policy in Poland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    16. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    17. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    18. Pleasant, Andrew & O’Leary, Catina & Carmona, Richard H., 2020. "Using formative research to tailor a community intervention focused on the prevention of chronic disease," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    19. Bean, Corliss N. & Kendellen, Kelsey & Halsall, Tanya & Forneris, Tanya, 2015. "Putting program evaluation into practice: Enhancing the Girls Just Wanna Have Fun program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 31-40.
    20. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:90:y:2022:i:c:s0149718921000756. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.