Ecur 809 Assignment #1

The evaluation that I've chosen to examine is a federal government evaluation of a Health Canada program concerning Hepatitis C. The program began in 1999 and was to finish in 2003/4 and its primary goals were to raise awareness of the disease, educate the public and other stakeholders about prevention, to create treatment programs, to set up community based programs for support of those affected, and to support research into the disease and its effects. It is a formative evaluation in that it was done when the program was ongoing and was not the final summative evaluation but rather the goal was to refine the implementation of the program and to be accountable to stakeholders such as the Canadian public and the treasury. The evaluation was based on a logic model which examined what was planned versus what was actually achieved by examining the components and funding, activities, outputs, and immediate, intermediate and long term outcomes.
Five separate logic models were integrated into one overarching model which used both quantitative and qualitative evaluation. The data collection methods used were interviews and surveys. There was also a review of pertinent documents and published literature pertaining to Hepatitis C in Canada. Case study reports were created based on the findings and used to code the data to strengthen the validity of the findings. Two reports were created, one dealing with the program implementation and progress of the program, including conclusions and recommendations and the other report containing the case study information. Bias was reduced by using multiple sources for the data and the strength of the study was enhanced by the high response rates in the case studies.
There were several things that I noticed about the evaluation that were both good and bad. From a research standpoint I appreciate that they included the technical aspects of the information gathering techniques regarding how the data was sampled and what it was analysed for. However I would have liked to have access to the case studies that were completed and also the interview and survey questions to assess the level of bias within the measurements themselves. Although it is presented in wording that I understand as someone who has taken a research methods course, I wish that the summary of information that was gathered was presented in such a way as to be easy for all of the stakeholders to understand. In the study they found that one of the problems for primary stakeholders, who are afflicted with the disease, was that they had a problem accessing the information regarding Hepatitis C, but they do not present the report in a way that these stakeholders could find the information useful regarding literacy levels and cultural awareness.
Overall I feel that this was a well-done evaluation for what it was intended to do. Although most of the recommendations were to continue to implement the program in the same ways that it was being done already, an evaluation like this is necessary for a program of this length to refocus on the initial goals and to examine how successful the program has been so far. It does no good to examine the program at the end and find that there were several ways that the stakeholders' needs were not being met. Because this was the first program about Hepatitis C in Canada, it made sense to do a midterm evaluation in case the program ran into major areas of difficult and needed to be restructured. As it was the evaluation helped to strengthen the initial goals and assure stakeholders that the program is doing its intended job.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hepc/pubs/psrpmideval-ppsrevalinter/index-eng.php#toc