Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Program Evaluation”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 541 records · Page 30Linked to original sources
PubMed1981

Citizen participation in CMHC program evaluation: a neglected potential.

A rationale for involving citizens in CMHC planning and evaluation is presented from three prospectives: (1) values, (2) responsiveness to the community, and (3) utilization of evaluative findings. Current practices in citizen involvement in CMHC evaluation are reviewed and several examples are given. Seven roles citizens can play in CMHC evaluation are described. Data indicating that citizens can provide useful, relevant information and recommendations which can lead to positive changes in the CMHC are offered. The paper concludes that citizen participation in CMHC evaluation occurs infrequently and presents suggestions as to how this situation can be remedied.

Community Mental Health Centers↗
PubMed1985

Standardizing outcome data in program evaluation.

Procedures are described for standardizing outcomes in evaluations of service delivery systems. Accounting for the variability of a given device, client gains across services can be expressed in a standard metric of change. Standardized gains take on a common meaning of change regardless of the original scale and variability of the raw data. In turn, a wide range of common statistical analyses can be applied with individual client gains as the units of analysis, powerfully delineating influences on outcome variability. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Community Mental Health Services↗
PubMed1982

Impact of federally mandated program evaluation.

A survey was conducted of 46 representatives from nine randomly selected community mental health centers to examine the impact of the requirements for self-evaluation in the 1975 Community Mental Health Centers Amendments (P.L. 94-63). Compliance was generally high, but considerable variability existed in the topics studied and in the amount of resources devoted to each study. The three conditions associated with the utility of a study were (1) the reason for conducting it (2) the topic of the study and (3) the role of the evaluator in disseminating the findings and making them useful. Respondents saw a need for federal evaluation requirements, but favoured self-selection of evaluation topic areas based on individual center needs.

Catchment Area, Health↗
PubMed1983

Standardizing outcome data in program evaluation.

Procedures are described for standardizing outcomes in evaluations of service delivery systems. Accounting for the variability of a given device, client gains across services can be expressed in a standard metric of change. Standardized gains take on a common meaning of change regardless of the original scale and variability of the raw data. In return, a wide range of common statistical analyses can be applied with individual client gains as the units of analysis, powerfully delineating influences on outcome variability. Implications and limitations are discussed.

Community Mental Health Services↗
PubMed1991

Focus group: implications for program evaluation of mental health services.

The focus group is a qualitative research method that involves group interaction based on a selected topic. It generally involves eight to 12 individuals who discuss a particular topic under the direction of a moderator who promotes interaction and guides the discussion on the topic of interest. This paper presents theoretical perspectives and a review of focus group methodology applied in related disciplines. A research project, which applied the focus group methodology, is described to illustrate important principles in utilizing this qualitative research technique. Information related to preparation for focus group sessions, structure, setting, participants, principles related to conducting the session and analysis are presented. The relevance of this methodology for research and practice in mental health also is discussed.

Group Processes↗