Volume 7, Issue 1 (Jan-March 2018)
JCHR 2018, 7(1): 32-41 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ford S, Talley C, Meghea C, Williams K P. Many Moving Parts: Evaluating the Implementation of the Kin KeeperSM Cancer Prevention Intervention. JCHR 2018; 7 (1) :32-41
URL: http://jhr.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-398-en.html
URL: http://jhr.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-398-en.html
1- Michigan State University
2- Florida A&M University
3- The Ohio State University ,williams.5963@osu.edu
2- Florida A&M University
3- The Ohio State University ,
Abstract: (4232 Views)
Introduction: This paper details an evaluation of the implementation and feasibility of a multilevel project entitled Kin KeeperSM Cancer Prevention Intervention that utilizes community health workers (CHWs) to deliver breast and cervical cancer education. The evaluation includes intervention fidelity, participant satisfaction, participant retention, and the cost of program implementation. The main purpose of this paper is to disseminate findings in order to inform and promote similar community health programming.
Methods: The evaluation framework integrates several models, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Evaluation Framework and the University of Wisconsin-Extension (UW-EX) Evaluation Model. This evaluation process is complex in that it: (1) is a CBPR; (2) is a Randomized Controlled Trial; (3) uses an ecological approach; and (4) is multicultural.
Results: For intervention fidelity, we found that 90% of participants reported high fidelity in the delivery of the intervention as well as strong participant satisfaction. Likewise, 90% of CHWs also report high fidelity in training provided and intervention integrity. Over 36 months of follow-up, the participant retention rate was 79% or greater with no significant differences between the intervention and control groups. The cost to implement and deliver the program to each intervention participant was $151.
Conclusion: These outcomes can inform policy in order to disseminate and implement quality health communication programming.
Methods: The evaluation framework integrates several models, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Evaluation Framework and the University of Wisconsin-Extension (UW-EX) Evaluation Model. This evaluation process is complex in that it: (1) is a CBPR; (2) is a Randomized Controlled Trial; (3) uses an ecological approach; and (4) is multicultural.
Results: For intervention fidelity, we found that 90% of participants reported high fidelity in the delivery of the intervention as well as strong participant satisfaction. Likewise, 90% of CHWs also report high fidelity in training provided and intervention integrity. Over 36 months of follow-up, the participant retention rate was 79% or greater with no significant differences between the intervention and control groups. The cost to implement and deliver the program to each intervention participant was $151.
Conclusion: These outcomes can inform policy in order to disseminate and implement quality health communication programming.
Review: Research |
Subject:
Health education
Received: 2017/11/17 | Accepted: 2018/02/27 | Published: 2018/02/27
Received: 2017/11/17 | Accepted: 2018/02/27 | Published: 2018/02/27
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
