Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2004-7
Participatory Research and Evaluation: From Best Practices for All States to Achievable Practices within Each State in the Context of the Master Settlement Agreement
Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) already assisted state tobacco control initiatives, many state health departments turned to CDC for guid-ance on how to use Master Settlement Agreement mon-ies. This article describes how CDC funded participa-tory research to establish local evidence and provided technical assistance for participatory program evalua-tion. The article (a) presents a telephone interview study of principal investigators (PIs) to determine how CDC could best facilitate participatory research and (b) identifies factors CDC considered to devise evaluation technical assistance that reflected local context. The interview study identified 8 areas where PIs needed CDC’s support to undertake participatory research: con-tinuity, timeliness, flexibility, clear and explicit expec-tations, appropriate and instructive accountability, creation of a vision for participatory research, tailored technical assistance, and enhancement of partner col-laboration and support. These findings are being used to inform CDC’s research funding. Meanwhile, userdriven technical assistance for participatory evaluation is being accessed by many states.
Abt Associates. (1997). Independent evaluation of the Massachu-setts Tobacco Control Program. Fourth annual report, January 1994-June 1997. Cambridge, MA: Author.
2.
Attorneys General Task Force. (1998, November). A comprehen-sive tobacco prevention and control plan for Washington State. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from www.wa.gov/ago/pubs/Tobacco.pdf
3.
Bauer, U., Johnson, T., Pallentino, J., Hopkins, R., McDaniel, W., Brooks, R. G., et al. (1999). Tobacco use among middle and high school students—Florida, 1998 and 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48(12), 248-253.
4.
California Department of Health Services. (1998, October). A model for change: The California experience in tobacco control. Sacramento, CA: Author.
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999a). Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs—August 1999. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Cen-ters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
6.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999b). Framework for program evaluation in public health practice. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
7.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Investment in tobacco control: State highlights—2001. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002a, October 2). HHS awards $11.4 million for community research into effective disease prevention and health promotion [Press Release]. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from www.phppo.cdc.gov/eprp/pr-cdc102.asp
9.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002b). Program announcement 02003: Community-based participatory prevention research. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from www.phppo.cdc.gov/eprp/docs/PA02003Final.pdf
10.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002c). Summary of program announcement 02003: Community-based participatory prevention research. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from www.phppo.cdc.gov/od/oser/PRPA02003.asp
11.
Connolly, G., & Robbins, H. (1998). Designing an effective state-wide tobacco program—Massachusetts. Cancer, 83, S2722-S2727.
12.
Crandall, D., & Williams, M. (1981). The maturation of technical assistance in the 1980s (Occasional Paper No. 2). Chapel Hill, NC: Technical Assistance Development System.
13.
Eisinger, A., & Senturia, K. (2001). Doing community-driven research: A description of Seattle Partners for Healthy Communi-ties. Journal of Urban Health, 78(3), 519-534.
14.
Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S. J., & Wandersman, A. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assess-ment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Frankish, C. J., George, A., Daniel, M., Doyle-Waters, M., Walker, M., & Members of the BC Consortium for Health Promotion Research. (1997). Participatory health promotion research in Can-ada: A community guidebook. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
16.
Freudenberg, N. (2001). Case history of the Center for Urban Epidemiologic Studies in New York City. Journal of Urban Health, 78(3), 508-518.
17.
George, M. A., Daniel, M., & Green, L. W. (1998-1999). Appraising and funding participatory research in health promotion. Interna-tional Quarterly of Community Health Education, 18(2), 181-197.
18.
Green, L. W. (1986). The theory of participation: A qualitative anal-ysis of its expression in national and international health policies. Advances in Health Education and Promotion, 1(Pt A), 211-236.
19.
Green, L. W. (2003). Tracing federal support for participatory research in public health. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory research in health (pp. 410-418). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Green, L. W., Eriksen, M. P., Bailey, L., & Husten, C. (2000). Achieving the implausible in the next decade’s tobacco control objectives. American Journal of Public Health, 90(3), 337-339.
21.
Green, L. W., George, A., Daniel, M., Frankish, C. J., Herbert, C. H., Bowie, W., et al. (1995). Study of participatory research in health promotion: Review and recommendations for the development of participatory research in health promotion in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Royal Society of Canada.
22.
Green, L. W., & Lewis, F. M. (1984). Measurement and evaluation in health education and health promotion. Palo Alto, CA: May-field Publishing.
23.
Green, L. W., & Mercer, S. L. (2001). Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities?American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1926-1929.
24.
Harris, J. E., Connolly, G. N., & Davis, B. (1997). Cigarette smoking before and after an excise-tax increase and anti-smoking cam-paign—Massachusetts, 1990-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 45(44), 960-970.
25.
Higgins, D. L., & Metzler, M. (2001). Implementing community-based participatory research centers in diverse urban settings. Journal of Urban Research, 78(3), 488-494.
26.
Hopkins, D. P., Fielding, J. E., & the Task Force on Community Pre-ventive Services. (2001). The guide to community preventive ser-vices: Tobacco use prevention and control. Reviews, recommenda-tions, and expert commentary. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(2S), S1-S88.
27.
Independent Evaluation Consortium. (1998). Final report of the independent evaluation of the California Tobacco Control Preven-tion and Education Program: Wave I data, 1996-1997. Rockville, MD: Gallup Organization.
28.
Institute of Medicine. (2003a). The future of the public’s health in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
29.
Institute of Medicine. (2003b). Who will keep the public healthy? Educating public health professionals for the 21st century. Wash-ington, DC: National Academies Press.
30.
Langton, P. A. (Ed.). (1995). The challenge of participatory research: Preventing alcohol-related problems in ethnic communi-ties. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-vices, Public Health Service, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
31.
Lantz, P. M., Viruell-Fuentes, E., Israel, B. A., Softley, D., & Guzman, R. (2001). Can communities and academia work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community-based participatory research partnership in Detroit. Journal of Urban Health, 78(3), 495-507.
32.
Lethem, F., & Cooper, L. (1983). Managing project-related techni-cal assistance: The lessons of success (World Bank Staff Working Papers, No. 586. Management and Development Series No. 13). Washington, DC: World Bank.
33.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
34.
MacDonald, G., Starr, G., Schooley, M., Yee, S. L., Klimowski, K., & Turner, K. (2001). Introduction to program evaluation for compre-hensive tobacco control programs. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Dis-ease Control and Prevention.
35.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). (2003). Community-based participatory research in health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37.
Minnesota Health Improvement Partnership, Tobacco Work Group. (1998, December). Tobacco use prevention and reduction in Minnesota: Elements, roles and costs of a comprehensive plan.
38.
Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health professionals (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
O’Fallon, L. R., & Dearry, A. (2002). Community-based participa-tory research as a tool to advance environmental health sciences. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(2), S155-S159.
40.
Park, P., Brydon-Miller, M., Hall, B., & Jackson, T. (Eds.). (1993). Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Educa-tion Press.
41.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new cen-tury text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
Pizacani, B., Mosbaek, C., Hedberg, K., Bley, L., Stark, M., Moore, J., et al. (1999). Decline in cigarette consumption following imple-mentation of a comprehensive tobacco prevention and education program—Oregon, 1996-1998. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,48(7), 140-143.
43.
Richard, L., Potvin, L., Kishchuck, N., Prlic, H., & Green, L. W. (1996). Assessment of the integration of the ecological approach in health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promo-tion, 10, 318-328.
44.
Sanders, J. M., & the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Shillis, J.A., Hall, B. A., Sneden, G. G., & Gottlieb, N. H. (2003). Keeping the focus on public health: The Struggles of a tobacco pre-vention task force. Health Education and Behavior, 30(6), 771-788.
46.
Springett, J. (2001). Participatory approaches to evaluation in health promotion. In I. Rootman, M. Goodstadt, B. Hyndman, D. V. McQueen, L. Potvin, J. Springett, et al. (Eds.), Evaluation in health promotion: Principles and perspectives (pp. 83-105). Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization.
47.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1997). Technical assistance in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Report of the Technical Assistance and Training Liaison Work Group. Washington, DC: Author.
48.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Reducing tobacco use: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Pre-vention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
49.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Program evaluation: An evaluation culture and collaborative partnerships help build agency capacity (GAO-03-454). Washington, DC: Author.
50.
Wahl, E., Cahill, M., & Fruchter, N. (1998). Building capacity: A review of technical assistance strategies. New York: New York University.
51.
WHO European Working Group on Health Promotion Evaluation. (1998). Health promotion evaluation: Recommendations to Policy-makers. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe.
52.
World Health Organization. (1986). Ottawa charter for health pro-motion. Health Promotion International, 1, iii-iv.
53.
Yee, S. L., & Schooley, M. (2001). Surveillance and evaluation data resources for comprehensive tobacco control programs. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
54.
Yin, R., & White, J. L. (1984). Federal technical assistance efforts: Lessons and improvement in education for 1984 and beyond. Washington, DC: Cosmos.
