Normal view MARC view ISBD view

A systematic process to facilitate evidence-informed decisionmaking regarding program expansion / Laurie T. Martin, Coreen Farris, David M. Adamson, Robin M. Weinick.

By: Martin, Laurie T. (Laurie Thayer), 1974- [author.].
Contributor(s): Adamson, David M [author.] | Farris, Coreen [author.] | Weinick, Robin M [author.] | United States. Department of Defense. Office of the Secretary of Defense [supporting body.] | Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health & Traumatic Brain Injury (U.S.) [supporting body.] | National Defense Research Institute (U.S.) [issuing body.] | Rand Corporation [issuing body.].
Material type: materialTypeLabelBookSeries: RAND toolkit: v. 3.; Research report (Rand Corporation): RR487z3.Publisher: Santa Monica, CA : Rand Corporation, [2014]Copyright date: ©2014Description: 1 online resource (xvi, 70 pages) : illustrations.Content type: text Media type: computer Carrier type: online resourceISBN: 0833084836; 9780833084835.Report number: RAND RR487z8Other title: RAND toolkit.Subject(s): Brain -- Wounds and injuries -- Treatment -- Evaluation | Evidence-based medicine -- Handbooks, manuals, etc | Health services administration -- United States | Medical care -- United States -- Evaluation | Mental health services -- Evaluation | Analytical, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Techniques and Equipment | Behavioral Disciplines and Activities | Brain Diseases | Brain Injuries -- therapy | Brain Injuries | Central Nervous System Diseases | Clinical Medicine | Craniocerebral Trauma | Decision Making | Disciplines and Occupations | Diseases | Evaluation Studies as Topic | Evidence-Based Medicine | Evidence-Based Practice | Health Care Evaluation Mechanisms | Health Care Facilities, Manpower, and Services | Health Care Quality, Access, and Evaluation | Health Care | Health Occupations | Health Services Administration | Health Services | Investigative Techniques | Medicine | Mental Health Services | Military Personnel | Named Groups | Nervous System Diseases | Occupational Groups | Persons | Program Evaluation | Psychiatry and Psychology | Quality Improvement | Quality of Health Care | Trauma, Nervous System | Wounds and Injuries | Evidence-based medicine | Health services administration | Medical care -- Evaluation | Mental health services -- Evaluation | PSYCHOLOGY -- Psychopathology -- Depression | Brain Injuries -- rehabilitation | Evaluation Studies as Topic | Evidence-Based Medicine | Mental Health Services | Military Personnel -- psychology | Program Evaluation | United States | United StatesGenre/Form: Electronic book. | Electronic books. | Handbooks and manuals.Additional physical formats: Print version:: Systematic process to facilitate evidence-informed decisionmaking regarding program expansion.DDC classification: 362.10973 Online resources: Digital version
Contents:
Introduction -- Assessing programs for possible expansion -- Quality of evaluation -- Program effectiveness -- Population and policy priorities -- Decisionmaking regarding program expansion -- Appendix A: Program abstraction form -- Appendix B: The RAND Program Expansion Tool and instruction manual -- Appendix C: Instruction manual for the RAND program assessment tool.
Summary: While the Department of Defense supports more than 200 psychological health and traumatic brain injury programs, it lacks an approach and process to systematically develop, track, and assess the performance of this portfolio of programs. Further, there is not yet a uniform approach to decisionmaking around program support and expansion of particularly promising, evidence-based programs. This lack of centralized oversight may result in the proliferation of untested programs that are developed without an evidence base; an inefficient use of resources; and added cost and administrative inefficiencies. RAND researchers developed a potential model and tools to support a centralized, systematic, and ongoing process to help in making decisions around continued program support, and by which expansion can be facilitated. This report includes two tools. The first is a Program Abstraction Form, which collects relevant background information from programs and asks explicitly about program effectiveness and the design of the program evaluation used to assess program effectiveness, as a poor evaluation design may lead to incorrect conclusions about the effectiveness of the program. The second is the RAND Program Expansion Tool, which provides a standardized summary of the quality and outcome of a program evaluation. The focus of these tools is on decisionmaking around program expansion, and does not preclude or address initial funding decisions of particularly promising new programs that may not yet have a solid evidence base.
    average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Item type Current location Call number URL Status Notes Date due Barcode
E-books E-books
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt5vjvn4 Not for loan Only accessible on campus.

"Approved for public release; distribution unlimited."

"RAND Corporation research report series."--Web page.

"RR-487/3-OSD."--Page 4 of printed paper wrapper from print version.

Includes bibliographical references (pages 69-70).

Introduction -- Assessing programs for possible expansion -- Quality of evaluation -- Program effectiveness -- Population and policy priorities -- Decisionmaking regarding program expansion -- Appendix A: Program abstraction form -- Appendix B: The RAND Program Expansion Tool and instruction manual -- Appendix C: Instruction manual for the RAND program assessment tool.

While the Department of Defense supports more than 200 psychological health and traumatic brain injury programs, it lacks an approach and process to systematically develop, track, and assess the performance of this portfolio of programs. Further, there is not yet a uniform approach to decisionmaking around program support and expansion of particularly promising, evidence-based programs. This lack of centralized oversight may result in the proliferation of untested programs that are developed without an evidence base; an inefficient use of resources; and added cost and administrative inefficiencies. RAND researchers developed a potential model and tools to support a centralized, systematic, and ongoing process to help in making decisions around continued program support, and by which expansion can be facilitated. This report includes two tools. The first is a Program Abstraction Form, which collects relevant background information from programs and asks explicitly about program effectiveness and the design of the program evaluation used to assess program effectiveness, as a poor evaluation design may lead to incorrect conclusions about the effectiveness of the program. The second is the RAND Program Expansion Tool, which provides a standardized summary of the quality and outcome of a program evaluation. The focus of these tools is on decisionmaking around program expansion, and does not preclude or address initial funding decisions of particularly promising new programs that may not yet have a solid evidence base.

Sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury ; conducted in the Forces and Resources Policy Center, RAND National Defense Research Institute (NDRI) W74V8H-06-C-0002

Description based on online resource; title from electronic title page (JSTOR, viewed February 1, 2018).

JSTOR Books at JSTOR Open Access

Powered by Koha