|
|
Volume
3:
No. 1, January 2006
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Identifying Best Practices for WISEWOMAN Programs Using a Mixed-Methods Evaluation
| |
Score |
| Site |
Reach |
Effectiveness |
Adoption |
Implementation |
Maintenance |
Overall |
| Local High Performer 1 |
100 |
100 |
25 |
100 |
57 |
76.4 |
| Local High Performer 2 |
86 |
86 |
46 |
71 |
71 |
72.0 |
| Local Low Performer |
15 |
29 |
75 |
29 |
29 |
35.4 |
Figure 2. Overall RE-AIM score (an average of five
RE-AIM scores) and individual RE-AIM scores for each of three local sites within
one WISEWOMAN project. RE-AIM indicates Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption,
Implementation and Maintenance (8).
Return to article
This algorithm begins with a box for "Practice 1." An arrow
links this box to a second box, "Number of times practice was state across all
sites." An arrow leads from the second box to a third, "Ranking of sites who
stated practice." Three arrows point from this box to three more boxes. One is
"High-performing and low-performing sites = May Be Best Practice." The second is
"All high-performing sites = Best Practice." The third is "All low-performing
sites = Not Best Practice. The box with "High-performing and low-performing
sites = May Be Best Practice" has an arrow that points to a box "Was there a
difference in how sites implemented the practice that explains why the practice
worked in high-performing but not low-performing sites?" From this box, one
arrow points to "Yes = Best Practice" and another points to "No = May Be Best
Practice." From "No = May Be Best Practice" an arrow points to a box "Are more
than two thirds of the sites that use the practice high-performing?" From this
box, one arrow points to "Yes = Best Practice" and another points to "No = Not
Best Practice."
Figure 5. Algorithm for determining best practices in
selected WISEWOMAN programs.
Return to article
|
|
