Darren Kaw, MPH Public Health Prevention Specialist Fellow [email protected] [email protected] 770-488-5180...
-
Upload
godwin-watson -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Darren Kaw, MPH Public Health Prevention Specialist Fellow [email protected] [email protected] 770-488-5180...
Darren Kaw, MPHPublic Health Prevention Specialist Fellow
Arthritis Council CallAugust 3rd, 2010
Arthritis Grantee Needs AssessmentArthritis Grantee Needs Assessment Survey Results, 2010 Survey Results, 2010
OutlineOutline
Background Survey topics Respondents’ characteristics
Results Training needs Top methods for technical assistance Top needs from CDC Top barriers Top programmatic strengths
Survey TopicsSurvey Topics Knowledge and Skills
Usage of current resources and tools Technical assistance topics
Assistance Topics respondents want to learn from peers
Partnerships Ability to access support for programs Barriers to partnerships with external organizations Capacity within own state health department
Methods Forms of live, “real time” training or TA which are appealing Forms of self-study or TA which are appealing Products or tools that serve as TA which are appealing
Respondent CharacteristicsRespondent Characteristics
76% response rate (37/49)
76% of respondents were from CDC-funded programs
Most were project coordinators or managers (46%)
54% of respondents have two or less years of experience in their arthritis program
Training NeedsTraining Needs
Topics rated as a “High need” or "Moderate need” “Developing a business case for arthritis interventions”
selected by 80% (28/35) of respondents• CDC-states may see this as a higher need than AID-states• Less experienced respondents may see this as a higher need
than more experienced respondents.
“Using data to persuade different types of decision makers”, selected by 80% (28/35) of respondents • CDC-states may see this as a higher need than AID-states• More experienced respondents may see this as a higher
need than less experienced respondents.* “less experienced” is defined as having two or less years experience in the respondent’s arthritis program while “more experienced is having three or more years experience
Training Needs cont’dTraining Needs cont’d
Topics rated as a “Low need” to learn “Resources for managing CDC or NACDD cooperative
agreements” and selected by 38% (14/37) of respondents• CDC states may see this as a higher need than AID states• Less experienced respondents may see this as a higher
need than more experienced respondents
“Requirements for licensing of certain programs”, selected by 39% (14/36) of respondents • CDC states may see this as a higher need than AID states• Less experienced respondents may see this as a higher
need than more experienced respondents
Training topics as indicated by Training topics as indicated by respondentsrespondents
Topic High/moderate need Low need
% of responsesN % of
responsesN
Developing a business case for arthritis interventions 80% 35 14% 35Using data to persuade different types of decision makers 80% 35 14% 35Embedding arthritis programs in partner systems and activities 78% 37 11% 37
Beginning to develop policy initiatives 77% 35 11% 35Provider outreach participant recruitment strategies 76% 37 11% 37
Media advocacy 74% 35 14% 35
CDC data products and sources 51% 35 29% 35
Project management 41% 34 35% 34Requirements for licensing of certain programs 33% 36 39% 36Resources for managing CDC or NACDD cooperative agreements 32% 37 38% 37
Training Needs: Learning from other Training Needs: Learning from other statesstates
Most popular topics: “Identifying system partners and initiating
collaborations” at 74% (25/37) “Policy or systems changes” 71% (24/37)
Least popular topics: “Experiences using the health communication
campaign” 35% (12/37) “Maintaining and working with an arthritis-specific
advisory group” 38% (13/37)
Methods: forms of live, “real time” Methods: forms of live, “real time” training or technical assistancetraining or technical assistance
Overall, respondents seem to find real time training or TA appealing
Most appealing forms in % “Very appealing” “In person at grantee meeting”, 63% (22/35) “In person as part of another
meeting/conference/training session”, 57% (20/35)
“Peer-to-peer discussions and presentations”, 46% (16/35)
Least appealing in % “Not very appealing” Arthritis Council calls and live satellite broadcast,
both at14% (5/35)
Methods: forms of live, “real time” Methods: forms of live, “real time” training or technical assistancetraining or technical assistance
Written comments noted limitations of these training options Grantee meeting: funding limited # of staff who could
attend Conference calls/webinars: competing sessions between
different organizations and grant projects Other issues
Suggestion of vetting process for materials to ensure they are timely, relevant, and informative
Limit length of webinars, conference calls, and media-based trainings to 45 – 60 minutes
Avoid forwarding emails without context
Preferred forms of live, “real time” Preferred forms of live, “real time” training or technical assistancetraining or technical assistance
Forms of live, “real time” training or TA
Very appealing Somewhat appealing
Not very appealing
% of response
s
N % of response
s
N % of response
s
N
In person at grantee meeting 63% 35 23% 35 3% 35In person as part of another meeting/conference/ training session 57% 35 23% 35 3% 35Peer-to-peer discussions and presentations 46% 35 40% 35 6% 35Arthritis Council calls 23% 35 34% 35 14% 35Live satellite broadcast 11% 35 51% 35 14% 35
Methods: forms of self-study training or Methods: forms of self-study training or technical assistancetechnical assistance
Overall, respondents seem to prefer real time training or TA more than self-study training
Most appealing forms in % “Very appealing” “Recorded webinar”, 37% (13/35) “Web-based interactive courses”, 29% (10/35)
Least appealing in % “Not very appealing” “Podcasts, Twitter, Facebook, or other social media
feeds or forums”, 46% (16/35) “Web forum and/or blogs to receive and share
information with peers”, 34% (12/35)
Methods: forms of self-study training or Methods: forms of self-study training or technical assistancetechnical assistance
Written comments mentioned the difficulty in finding time to utilize these tools, but that it may be ideal for some people.
One respondent cautioned against using social media if only because it is new and exciting.
Preferred forms of self-study training Preferred forms of self-study training or technical assistanceor technical assistance
Forms of self-study training or TA
Very appealing Somewhat appealing
Not very appealing
% of response
s
N % of response
s
N % of response
s
N
Recorded webinar 37% 35 46% 35 11% 35Web-based interactive courses 29% 35 46% 35 14% 35Podcasts, Twitter, Facebook, or other social media feeds or forums 9% 35 14% 35 46% 35Web forum and/or blogs to receive and share information with peers 11% 35 34% 35 34% 35
Methods: Products or tools to serve Methods: Products or tools to serve technical assistance or teaching aidestechnical assistance or teaching aides
Respondents want materials that can promote program effectiveness and benefits Can be used to strengthen the need for
interventions Marketing materials
Problem with AF’s marketing tools Desire for additional marketing tools for
Enhanced Fitness, CDSMP, and other non-AF programs
Products or tools to serve as technical Products or tools to serve as technical assistance or training aidesassistance or training aides
Products/tools Very appealing
Somewhat appealing
Not very appealing
% of response
s
N% of
responses
N % of response
s
N
Quick reference guides 49% 35 40% 35 3% 35Fact sheets 37% 35 51% 35 6% 35Written materials to study 12% 34 50% 34 21% 34Scripts to use with partners 19% 32 38% 32 16% 32
Needs from CDCNeeds from CDC
Increased funding From both AID and CDC-states, larger proportion of AID-states
though Sustainability
Federal support through CMS funds, US Preventative Task Force recommendation, data on return on investment or cost-effectiveness
Networking with other states Seen as way to share successes, struggles, and lessons
learned Recommendation for a 2nd grantee meeting during the year
via webinar or satellite Setting time at conference for networking
Needs from CDCNeeds from CDC
Clarity with program requirements Requested by CDC-funded states Several respondents would like clear language in the
grant announcement regarding mandatory travel to the grantee conference
Reporting requirements not very clear• Recommendation that new guidance should be
communicated via teleconference or webcast along with discussion time with project officers
Top challenges faced by the programTop challenges faced by the program
Funding Lack of interest or commitment from partners
Lack of funding for partners Lack of staff time and resources to develop partnerships Reorganization of a local AF chapter Competition for partners for advisory groups Turf issues from ARRA funding
Increasing the number of program participants Several respondents identified building brand recognition as a
challenge related to participant recruitment
Grantee barriers to partnershipGrantee barriers to partnership
Most common barrier “Financial limitations within the health department” at
60% (18/30) Least common barrier
“Lack of assistance within my own organization in creating partnership” at 10% (3/30)
Written comments focused on issues with funding and how potential partners want funding to collaborate on specific interventions. Lack of funding also affected program coordination as paid staff is needed for that work.
Top programmatic strengthsTop programmatic strengths
Internal partnerships Good work coordination and support from management
External partnerships Existing external partners strong, collaborations with
faith-based partners, capitalizing on a local AF Chapter partnership
Having a network to deliver interventions and referrals Program staff
Strong level of commitment, expertise, and understanding of arthritis
AppendixAppendix
Additional data from survey not covered in presentation
Knowledge and skillsKnowledge and skills
Most commonly used tools CDC Arthritis Web site: 89% (31/37) used it “A lot” or
“Some” • More experienced AID-funded respondents used the site
more than less experienced AID-funded respondents*• CDC-funded respondents used the site “A lot” or “Some”
regardless of experience CDC data products and sources: 84% (31/37) used it “A
lot” or “Some” • CDC-funded states used CDC data products more than AID-
states• Respondents with 3+ years of experience used CDC data
products more* “less experienced” is defined as having two or less years experience in the respondent’s arthritis program while “more experienced is having three or more years experience
Knowledge and skillsKnowledge and skills
Least used tool AF Step-by-Step Partnership Guide: 43% (16/37) used it
“Not at all”• 27% of respondents did not know this tool existed or where
to find it• Respondents with 2 or less years of experience did not
know this tool existed or where to find it• More respondents from AID-states than CDC-states did not
know this tool existed or where to find it
Respondents' current usage of Respondents' current usage of available resources and toolsavailable resources and tools
Resource/tool
A lot/Some use Not at all used Don't know where to find/existed
% of response
s
N % of response
s
N % of response
s
N
CDC Arthritis Web site 89% 37 11% 37 0% 37CDC data products and sources 84% 37 11% 37 5% 37Cooperative agreement information for state coordinators 68% 37 19% 37 11% 37
Online courses 57% 37 32% 37 11% 37
Media tools 57% 36 24% 36 16% 36Partnership planning information (AF Step-by-Step Partnership Guide) 30% 37 43% 37 27% 37
Partnerships: Program supportPartnerships: Program support
For the most part, respondents were able to access support for the listed programs
Programs “usually able to” access support: CDSMP 94% (30/32) EnhancedFitness 81% (13/16)
Partnerships: Program support Partnerships: Program support suggestionssuggestions
Some respondents did not understand the question Some were unsure if support is meant to come from the
national sponsor of the program, the state chapters, or other organizations with capacity in the programs
Comments that EnhanceFitness and Fit and Strong! have good support but are only offered in a limited geographical area and not statewide like some of the others
Work within state health departmentsWork within state health departments
Responses generally positive “Always true” or "Usually true” that
Respondent able to request epidemiological support in a timely manner: 83% (29/35)
Respondent able to collaborate with other public health programs: 82% (28/34)
Respondent able to access appropriate departments, units, or staff to implement outreach through media: 65% (22/34)• More respondents indicated “Neutral” for this question