Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (13)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (6)
Similar to Obesity Steering Committee 4-2-12 Presentation
Similar to Obesity Steering Committee 4-2-12 Presentation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Obesity Steering Committee 4-2-12 Presentation
- 1. Prioritizing Obesity Strategies Obesity Integration Steering Committee Meetings 2.29.12, 3.19.12, 4.2.12, 4.25.12
- 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. Agenda Review Welcome and Overview Focusing on the Big Picture Revisit Criteria Clarify Strategies and State Roles Next Steps and Closure
- 4. Decision Making Process Discussion: All encouraged to participate Decisions: 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. Steering Committee Voting Members 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. 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. 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. Criteria Rankings - Results
- 9. Top 5 Criteria 1. Likelihood of Population Impact (new definition includes reach) 2. Capacity to Implement 3. Impact of Health Disparities 4. Ability to Measure 5. Political/Community Support
- 10. Reporting of Priorities 1. 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) Roles 2. 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. Clarify Strategies and State Roles
- 12. In a nutshell…Levels of Evidence 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. Literature Review Results SECTOR EVIDENCE RATINGS Worksites 5 Proven; 1 Likely Effective Schools 7 Likely Effective; 2 Promising; 5 Emerging Media 1 Likely Effective; 2 Promising; 2 Emerging; 1 Not Recommended Health Systems 2 Proven; 3 Likely Effective; 1 Promising; 1 Emerging Food Systems 2 Likely Effective; 3 Promising Community 1 Proven; 5 Likely Effective; 1 Emerging Child Care 4 Likely Effective; 3 Emerging; 2 Not Recommended Built Environment 5 Likely Effective; 2 Emerging
- 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. Final Tally of # of Strategies Moving Forward for Prioritization
- 16. Completing the Prioritization Survey Timing: 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 CDPHE Refer to Handout for Definitions, Rating, Scale, and Considerations
- 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. 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
Editor's Notes
- Reminder of where we are in the process
- Review agenda (tight agenda, will keep us moving)Other handoutsnorms
- Explain how the sector teams will get to work with the implementation teams once the strategies are prioritized.The information will not go away.
- As a reminder…These were the results from the first survey. We made several decisions last time:Combined LPI and Reach – felt they were overlappingModerate the LPI/Reach score by level of evidence (meaning that the average rating for LPI/Reach will be given extra credit if the strategy is likely effective or proven.We elected to rate each strategy against five criteria.
- These became our top five criteria.Remember, we selected criteria that we felt would be helpful in prioritizing strategies that CDPHE should put time and resources behind.You have a handout that shows the definition, the rating scale we’ll use, and some considerations to think about when applying the criteria. For now, just know it is there and we’ll have an opportunity to look at it together toward the end of the meeting today.
- We thought it might be helpful, as we move into the strategy discussion, for you to know what the Executive Committee will receive, once we have the prioritized list.2 lists:One will show all of the strategies ordered by their total priority score (remember, there may be ties), across all sectors.The other will show the ranking of specific strategies within each sector.Why both?Ultimately, it is up to the Executive Committee to decide which sectors we work on, and which strategies we implement.We don’t want to assume that just because all of the strategies in one sector were ranked lower than all of the strategies in another sector, that we would simply not work on the lower ranked sector. We feel that providing the information in two formats will allow the Executive Committee to see the information from a couple different perspectives.
- Evidence level will be considered in decision making by OSC and Executive CommitteeNeed this slide?
- Was there a correction to this slide that needs to be made?Each sector team will have 10 minutes to answer questions related to strategies within their sector. Determine who will be answering questions.TimekeepingInstructions on chart paper
- Review tight timeframe.General considerations:Remember, we are prioritizing strategies so that CDPHE can determine what it will direct time and resources toward.We’ve got a set of criteria that help us understand what constitutes an important strategy for CDPHE to put resources behind.If a strategy doesn’t rise to the top using the criteria we’ve selected, it doesn’t mean it isn’t important…it just means it didn’t rise to the top. The EC still may choose to direct resources to it for the time being…It may be very much a priority for one of our partners.Most strategies require partnership, and we’ve identified that there is a role for CDPHE to play in all these strategies, if they are prioritized. We don’t know exactly what the role looks like, though we have some general ideas of common roles. We will need you to rate the overall strategy against the criteria – we are not asking you to rate the specific role that CDPHE will play (since we don’t know that yet) against the criteria.Refer to the handout. Walk through the definitions and considerations one at a time. Make sure everyone is clear on each.
- Reminder of where we are in the processReminder of some of the hopes from last timeBRIEF summary of what was on people’s minds and how that was woven into process (if needed)