- The document discusses the ISCOPES program, a 25-year old service-learning initiative that places interprofessional student teams in the Washington D.C. community.
- An evaluation was conducted of ISCOPES participants graduating in Spring 2020 compared to non-ISCOPES participants. It assessed competencies in areas like community health education, program management, and interprofessional collaboration.
- The evaluation found no significant differences between ISCOPES and non-ISCOPES participants in competency scores. It did find those currently working in health education scored higher than those not working in the field. The document provides recommendations like better integrating competencies into the program and engaging alumni.
2. • 25th year of the ISCOPES program
• Improve upon and advocate for the program
3. Background on ISCOPES
• Service-learning initiative
– throughout the Washington, D.C. community
• Interprofessional teams
– public health master’s students, undergraduate
students, nursing students, and medical students
4. Background on ISCOPES
• Learning and coaching curriculum
– mentoring, training, group meetings for planning and
implementation of health focus initiative
• Gain practical experience in health education and
promotion
• Knowledge on how to develop, implement and
evaluate health-focused initiatives
5. Objectives of ISCOPES
• Goal 1: 1st Year participants
– Students possess the skill to manage long-term continuous community
intervention
• Goal 2: recent ISCOPES Alumni/Team Advocates (TAs)
• Goal 3: Alumni (graduated)
• Goal 4: Coaches and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who are also current
practitioners
• Goal 5: Community Members (Clients)
• Goal 6 Full-time ISCOPES Leadership Team members (ILTers)
6. Aim of This Evaluation
• Goal 1 (1st Year participants): To develop the capacity of GW students to
collaborate in interprofessional learning communities on health-focused
initiatives throughout the DC metro area during the academic year.
– Students possess the skill to manage long-term continuous community
intervention
7. Methods
Evaluation Design
Intervention Group:
Milken ISCOPES Participants
graduating in spring 2020
Comparison Group:
Milken Non-ISCOPES Participants
graduating in spring 2020
Initial outcome measures were measured and compared.
8. 2015 Health Education Specialist
Practice Analysis (HESPA)
Competencies used for Community
Health Education Specialist (CHES)
• Assess Needs, Resources and
Capacity
• Plan
• Implement
• Conduct Evaluation and Research
• Administer and Manage
• Serve as a Resource Person
• Communicate, Promote, and
Advocate for Health, Health
Education/Promotion, and the
Profession
2015 Program Management
Professional certification (PMP)
• Initiating
• Planning
• Executing
• Monitoring and Controlling
• Closing
2016 Interprofessional Education
Collaborative (IPEC)
• Values/Ethics for Interprofessional
Practice
• Roles/Responsibilities
• Interprofessional Communication
• Teams and Teamwork
I feel comfortable… Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
9. Data Collection
Convenience sample
– All spring 2020 graduating Milken gradate level students, regardless of
ISCOPES participation
Distribution
– Personalized emails, Facebook pages, newsletter emails and word of mouth
Data collection tool
– A survey on SurveyMonkey
Data Analysis
– SPSS
13. Summary Scores for Data Analysis
•Initiating
•Planning
•Executing
•Monitoring
and Controlling
•Closing
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
0
1
2
1
2
PMP Total
6
Independent-samples t-test to compare means and two-way ANOVA to
examine interaction between work status and participation on scores
14. Competency Summary Scores and
Participation in ISCOPES
•There was not a significant difference in
the CHES summary scores for ISCOPES
participants and non-ISCOPES participants.
•There was not a significant difference in
the PMP summary scores for ISCOPES
participants and non-ISCOPES participants.
There was not a significant difference in the
IPEC summary scores for ISCOPES
participants and non-ISCOPES participants.
t-Test Results Comparing ISCOPES Participation and Summary Scores
Have you ever
participated in the
ISCOPES
program?
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
CHESsum
Yes 28 6.3929 2.83287 .53536
No 36 7.1111 3.43742 .57290
PMPsum
Yes 28 5.1786 2.32624 .43962
No 36 5.1667 2.84354 .47392
IPECsum
Yes 28 5.3214 1.98240 .37464
No 36 5.6389 1.95890 .32648
15. Competency Summary Scores and Work Status
• There was a significant difference in the CHES
summary scores for those who worked in a health
education/promotion field and those who did not
work in a health education/promotion.
There was a significant difference in the PMP
summary scores for those who worked in a health
education/promotion and those who did not work
in a health education/promotion field.
• There was a significant difference in the IPEC
summary scores for those who worked in a health
education/promotion field and those who did not
work in a health education/promotion field.
t-Test Results Comparing Work Status and Summary Scores
Do you currently
work in the
health education
and/or promotion
field, either part-
time, full-time or
as an internship?
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
CHESsum
Yes 34 8.0588 2.67357 .45851
No 30 5.3667 3.14570 .57432
PMPsum
Yes 34 5.9118 2.45403 .42086
No 30 4.3333 2.56412 .46814
IPECsum
Yes 34 6.0000 1.82574 .31311
No 30 4.9333 1.98152 .36178
16. Competency Summary Scores and Work Status
•There was not a statistically significant interaction between
the effects of ISCOPES participation and work status on CHES
summary scores, F (1, 30) = 3.763, p = .057.
•There was not a statistically significant interaction between
the effects of ISCOPES participation and work status on PMP
summary scores, F (1, 23) = 3.781, p = .057.
•There was not a statistically significant interaction between
the effects of ISCOPES participation and work status on IPEC
summary scores, F (1, 10) = 2.934, p = .092.
No statistically significant
interaction between the
effect of work status and
ISCOPES participation on
competency achievement
17. Recommendations
Recruit students from all departments to increase ‘interprofessional’ aspect
Better integration of IPEC and PMP competencies into the program structure
Create an environment similar to the PH
working environment within ISCOPES
Better engagement with Alumni in planning process
as well as implementation
18. Qualitative interviews to understand skills gained by working in PH field
Closer partnership with career center to understand how to integrate skills into
ISCOPES
Evaluation of impact on community partners
Consider medium- and long-term impacts on students as well as other stakeholders
Next Steps
Your aims/goals
What are your methods?
Run through the project. Logic model?
What were your results?
Place into context
Conclusion/Recommendations
With this anniversary comes the ability to celebrate the impact the program has had on the community at GW and DC. Every year, ISCOPES leadership provides a year-end report of the program and this year, ISCOPES hopes to incorporate an evaluation into the year-end report. Additionally, the results will be shared with key stakeholders at GW and the community partners the program works with.
Concept
How did you come up with this idea? Is there a story?
through bi-monthly visits to partner sites (community-based clinics, non-profit organizations, and various living communities) of which ISCOPES have secured a memorandum of understanding. With this training, mentoring and practical exposure, the participants will gain knowledge of how to develop, implement and evaluate health-focused initiatives. Over time, students will have the capacity to manage long-term continuous community intervention as well as engage in interprofessional learning communities within the DC metro area.
Goal 1 (1st Year participants): To develop the capacity of GW students to collaborate in interprofessional learning communities on health-focused initiatives throughout the DC metro area during the academic year.
Students possess the skill to manage long-term continuous community intervention
Goal 2 (recent ISCOPES Alumni/Team Advocates (TAs)): We will develop the capacity of Team Advocates to facilitate individual and team development during the academic year.
Goal 3 (Alumni (graduated)): We will maximize the capacity of ISCOPES alumni to generate, contribute to, advocate for, and sustain interprofessional learning communities to improve health-focused initiatives worldwide.
Goal 4 (Coaches and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who are also current practitioners): We will foster the capacity of ISCOPES Coaches and SMEs to utilize, nurture, and grow with interprofessional learning communities.
Goal 5 (Community Members (Clients)): We will foster the capacity of Community Members/Clients to improve their own and others’ health.
Goal 6 (Full-time ISCOPES Leadership Team members (ILTers)): We will maximize our own capacity to model complexity leader traits; create and foster a culture grounded in co-learning and relationship building and catalyze systems-level change.
Indicator measures for this impact evaluation came from three different public health certification organizations
A two-way ANOVA was conducted that examined the effect of ISCOPES participation and work-status on PMP summary scores. A two-way ANOVA was conducted that examined the effect of ISCOPES participation and work-status on IPEC summary scores.