Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Obesity Steering Committee 4-2-12 Presentation

480 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Obesity Steering Committee 4-2-12 Presentation

  1. 1. Prioritizing Obesity Strategies Obesity Integration Steering Committee Meetings 2.29.12, 3.19.12, 4.2.12, 4.25.12
  2. 2. Prioritization Process When Purpose/Actions Meeting 1 (2/29) • Getting Started • Agreements For Moving Forward Between Meetings Initial Survey (e-input) • Review/Provide Input on Proposed Criteria • Identify State Roles for Strategies Meeting 2 (3/19) • Review/Finalize Criteria 9:30am -12:30pm Meeting 3 (4/2) • Clarify Strategies 9:30am-12:30pm • Clarify State Roles Between Meetings Prioritization Survey (e-input) • Rate Strategies Using Final Criteria • Refine Concise Statement Meeting 4 (4/25) • Share Results of Prioritization 1:30pm – 4:30pm • Gather Additional Input for Ex Committee
  3. 3. Agenda Review Welcome and Overview Focusing on the Big Picture Revisit Criteria Clarify Strategies and State Roles Next Steps and Closure
  4. 4. Decision Making ProcessDiscussion: All encouraged to participateDecisions: For Today & Prioritization Survey 60% super majority vote, motioned by a Steering Committee Member One vote per Steering Committee Member Ex Committee, and other observers, do not vote
  5. 5. Steering Committee VotingMembers Sector Team Leads or Designee (8 reps from PSD) Healthy Eating (2 reps from PSD) LHAs (5 total: 1 rep each from El Paso, Weld, Boulder, Pueblo, West-Central Partnership) External Organizations (3 total: 1 rep each from Live Well, Kaiser, Health Foundation)
  6. 6. Big Picture We are charged with making the best decisions that we can with the evidence available about which strategies to address at the state level.  We might not have all the info we would like to make decisions. The sector teams focused on systematic reviews and narrative reviews or a body of evidence about the effectiveness of strategies to increase physical activity and/or healthy eating in their specific sector setting. Emerging areas may also be funded in the future as we continue to revisit the evidence and Colorado’s priorities. Today: presenting information related to the evidence. Not a time for advocacy.
  7. 7. Considerations Executive Committee will:  Get full list of strategies with their ranks from the prioritization survey  Across all sectors and  Within a sector  Consider referring for implemention strategies that are not proven by the research Implementation teams will consider:  Applicability to Colorado  Resources needed  Consultation with sector teams and/or partners  Future evidence
  8. 8. Criteria Rankings - Results
  9. 9. Top 5 Criteria1. Likelihood of Population Impact (new definition includes reach)2. Capacity to Implement3. Impact of Health Disparities4. Ability to Measure5. Political/Community Support
  10. 10. Reporting of Priorities1. Strategies Across Sectors (ranked from highest to lowest priority regardless of sector)Strategy Sector Evidence Population Capacity Impact Ability to Support Total Potential Level Impact on HD Measure Score CDPHE (adjusted) Roles2. Strategies Within Sectors (ranked from highest to lowest priority within each sector) Sector A Strategy Evidence Population Capacity Impact Ability to Support Total Potential Level Impact on HD Measure Score CDPHE (adjusted) Roles Sector B Strategy Evidence Population Capacity Impact Ability to Support Total Potential Level Impact on HD Measure Score CDPHE (adjusted) Roles
  11. 11. Clarify Strategies and State Roles
  12. 12. In a nutshell…Levels ofEvidence in PSD Proven: systematic or narrative reviews; considers study design and execution, external validity, body of evidence, and results Likely Effective: peer review articles in scientific literature; considers study design and execution, external validity, body of evidence, and results Promising: written program evaluation without formal peer reviews; considers summative evidence of effectiveness, theory, and formative evaluation data Emerging: ongoing work with little evidence so far, but sound theory and evaluation in place Not Recommended: evidence of effectiveness is conflicting and/or of poor quality and/or suggestive of harm
  13. 13. Literature Review ResultsSECTOR EVIDENCE RATINGSWorksites 5 Proven; 1 Likely EffectiveSchools 7 Likely Effective; 2 Promising; 5 EmergingMedia 1 Likely Effective; 2 Promising; 2 Emerging; 1 Not RecommendedHealth Systems 2 Proven; 3 Likely Effective; 1 Promising; 1 EmergingFood Systems 2 Likely Effective; 3 PromisingCommunity 1 Proven; 5 Likely Effective; 1 EmergingChild Care 4 Likely Effective; 3 Emerging; 2 Not RecommendedBuilt Environment 5 Likely Effective; 2 Emerging
  14. 14. Discussion & Decision Discussion: Should any strategies not previously identified by the sector teams be included in the prioritization process? For each new strategy discussed, need:  Description  Evidence: Individual Study? Narrative Review? Systematic Review?  Potential State Role Decision: Vote on whether or not there is a state role for each new strategy proposed. If so, the strategy moves to the list to be prioritized.
  15. 15. Final Tally of # of StrategiesMoving Forward for Prioritization
  16. 16. Completing the PrioritizationSurveyTiming:  Receive by Friday 4/6  One week to complete it – please schedule time now.General Considerations:  Purpose – what does CDPHE want to direct resources toward  Criteria helps us understand what’s important in decision-making  Priority does not equal “Important Strategy”  Rate the overall strategy against the criteria, not a specified role for CDPHERefer to Handout for Definitions, Rating, Scale, and Considerations
  17. 17. Prioritization Process When Purpose/Actions Meeting 1 (2/29) • Getting Started • Agreements For Moving Forward Between Meetings Initial Survey (e-input) • Review/Provide Input on Proposed Criteria • Identify State Roles for Strategies Meeting 2 (3/19) • Review/Finalize Criteria 9:30am -12:30pm Meeting 3 (4/2) • Clarify Strategies 9:30am-12:30pm • Clarify State Roles Between Meetings Prioritization Survey (e-input) • Rate Strategies Using Final Criteria • Refine Concise Statement Meeting 4 (4/25) • Share Results of Prioritization 1:30pm – 4:30pm • Gather Additional Input for Ex Committee
  18. 18. Thank You and Closure On the index card provided let us know What is still on your mind? Leave note sheets on table before you leave For those on the phone: email your responses to: Laurie.schneider@ucdenver.edu

×