Download to read offline
More Related Content
Similar to Impact Evaluation of Milken's ISCOPES Program
Impact Evaluation of Milken's ISCOPES Program
- 1.
- 2. • 25th yearof 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 ThisEvaluation • 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: MilkenISCOPES 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 EducationSpecialist 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
- 10.
- 11. Demographics of Interest 71% 29% Departmentsof ISCOPES Participants Prevention, Global Health, Health Policy Epidemiology, Environmental, Online, MS, Exercise/Nutrition ISCOPES Participants Non-ISCOPES Participants Sample Total n % n % n % Gender Female 26 92.9 32 88.9 58 90.6 Male 2 7.1 4 11.1 6 9.4 Age 22-24 12 42.9 13 36.1 25 39.1 25-27 11 39.3 12 33.3 23 35.9 28+ 5 17.9 11 30.6 16 25.0 Department Prevention, Global Health, Health Policy 20 71.4 19 52.8 39 60.9 Epi, Environmental, Online, MS, Exercise/Nutrition 8 28.6 17 47.2 25 39.1 Work Status Yes 10 35.7 24 66.7 34 53.1 No 18 64.3 12 33.3 30 46.9 Total 28 100.0 36 100.0 64 100.0
- 12. Demographics of Interest 36% 64% WorkStatus of ISCOPES Participants Yes No 67% 33% Work Status of Non- ISCOPES Participants Yes No
- 13. Summary Scores forData 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 Scoresand 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 Scoresand 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 Scoresand 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 fromall 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 tounderstand 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
- 19. Thank you! Aashna Panjwani aashnap@gwu.edu linkedin.com/in/aashna-panjwani MPHGlobal Health Program Development, Monitoring, and Evaluation
Editor's Notes
- #2 Your aims/goals What are your methods? Run through the project. Logic model? What were your results? Place into context Conclusion/Recommendations
- #3 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?
- #5 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.
- #6 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.
- #9 Indicator measures for this impact evaluation came from three different public health certification organizations
- #17 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.