Evaluation of Community-Based Health Projects: The Healthy Tomorrows Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To address the "millennial morbidities," pediatricians must partner with community-based organizations to develop interventions. Little is known about the capacity of the resulting programs for program evaluation or the importance of evaluation in project success and sustainability. The objective of this study was to examine the capacity of community-based health programs to conduct project evaluations and determine the impact of project evaluation on project outcome. METHODS: Project directors from 149 community-based programs funded from 1989 to 2003 through the Healthy Tomorrows Partnership for Children Program were surveyed regarding their project experience with evaluation and documentation of project outcomes and the current status of their project. RESULTS: Program directors from 123 (83%) programs completed the survey. Despite barriers to the evaluation process, 83% of the respondents indicated that their evaluations produced useful information. Programs that were described by respondents as "well evaluated" were more likely to report that the evaluation was implemented as planned and that the evaluation included outcome measures. Projects were more likely to be sustained in their original form when at least 1 outcome was reported on the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of community-based programs, although challenging, is beneficial to project success and sustainability. Policy makers and funding agencies should consider ways to encourage community partnerships to incorporate evaluation into their planning process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".