The Role of Program Evaluation in Keeping Army Health "Army Strong": Translating Lessons Learned Into Best Practices.

Service Members and military beneficiaries face complex and ill-structured challenges, including suicide, sexual violence, increasing health care costs, and the evolving coronavirus pandemic. Military and other government practitioners must identify effective programs, policies, and initiatives to preserve the health and ensure the readiness of our Force. Both research and program evaluation are critical to identify interventions best positioned to prevent disease, protect the public's health, and promote health and well-being within our ranks to retain a medically ready force and reduce the global burden of disease. While military and medical leaders are typically well versed in research and understand the role of research in evidence-informed decisions, they may be less aware of program evaluation. Program evaluation is the systematic application of scientific methods to assess the design, implementation, improvement, or outcomes of a program, policy, or initiative. Although program evaluators commonly utilize scientific or research methods to answer evaluation questions, evaluation ultimately differs from research in its intent. Several recently published federal and Department of Defense policies specifically reference program evaluation, emphasizing its importance to the military and government as a whole. The Army is uniquely positioned to conduct medical and public health evaluation activities and there are several Army organizations and entities that routinely perform this work. For example, the United States Army Public Health Center (APHC) is among recognized military experts in public health assessment and program evaluation. Given the breadth of our work, the APHC understands the challenges to conducting evaluation studies in the Army and we have thoughtfully examined the conditions common to successful evaluation studies. In this commentary, we share our lessons learned to assist military colleagues, potential partners, and others in successfully evaluating the programs, policies, and initiatives necessary to keep our Service Members and beneficiaries healthy and ready. There are several challenges to executing evaluation studies in the Army that may be relevant across all Services. These include but are not limited to frequent Army leadership transitions, urgency to report study results, lack of program documentation and adequate planning for evaluation, expectation management to ensure stakeholders are well-informed about the evaluation process, and a disorganized data landscape. These challenges may hinder the successful execution of evaluation studies, or prevent them from being attempted in the first place, depriving Army leaders of quality, actionable information to make evidence-informed decisions. Despite the aforementioned challenges, we have identified a number of best practices to overcome these challenges and conduct successful evaluation studies. These facilitators of successful evaluations can be summarized as: collaboration with engaged stakeholders who understand the value of evaluation, evaluation studies aligned with larger strategic priorities, agile methodology, thoughtful evaluation planning, and effective communication with stakeholders. We wholeheartedly recommend and encourage program evaluation at every opportunity, and we anticipate the call for evaluation and evidence-informed decisions to continually increase. Our hope is that others - to include partners and stakeholders within and external to the military - will be able to leverage and apply this information, especially the identified best practices, in their evaluation efforts to ensure success.

Local health department and academic institution linkages for community health assessment and improvement processes: a national overview and local case study.

Community health improvement processes that yield community health assessments (CHAs) and community health improvement plans (CHIPs) provide data and a process to determine key community priorities and take action and are ideally collaborative endeavors. Nationally, increased focus on CHAs and CHIPs highlights the role that Academic Health Departments or other local health department (LHD)-academic linkages can play in completing CHAs and CHIPs. Drawn from the experiences of 5 LHD-academic partnerships that participated in a national demonstration and a detailed account of the experience of one, this article presents how such linkages can support CHA and CHIP work, ways to anticipate and overcome challenges, and the tangible benefits that may be realized for both the LHD and the academic partner. Community health improvement processes are ripe opportunities for LHD-academic linkages and can be fruitful and mutually beneficial partnerships to be used in completing CHAs and CHIPs to measurably improve the public's health.

Challenges and lessons learned in developing a community-based health survey.

BACKGROUND: Collecting community-level data to inform health interventions and monitor health status is critical to improving community health and eliminating health disparities. Ideally, the process for designing and utilizing these data collection tools will include representation from community, service, and academic institutions. The process for incorporating these entities' diverse needs and perspectives, however, can be challenging. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes how a community-academic partnership designed a survey in 2003 and 2005 to examine factors influencing the health of residents in an urban city and surrounding county area. METHODS: The partnership used community-based public health research principles to guide the development of the telephone surveys. LESSONS LEARNED: Through these two survey development processes, we learned three key lessons: To regularly examine our partnership and process; to communicate directly with and obtain the support of each individual partner; and to focus on building the capacity of the partners and partnership.

Using GIS to facilitate community-based public health planning of diabetes intervention efforts.

Data from a community survey were analyzed geographically to help facilitate local diabetes prevention efforts. Data were available from the Speak to Your Health! Community Survey, designed and implemented by The Prevention Research Center of Michigan (PRC/MI), whose central mission is to strengthen community capacity to improve health. This survey was developed collaboratively by the university and community partners that comprise the PRC/MI and focuses on health and social issues at the heart of the community of Genesee County, Michigan. Survey data were used to calculate and geographically map diabetes-risk scores and mapped diabetes-screening rates. These maps indicated that those areas where the estimated risk of diabetes was the highest had only moderate rates of diabetes screening relative to other areas. It is hoped that these results will reach those involved in local diabetes-intervention programs with the intent that the data will be used in planning local prevention and intervention efforts.