↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating Policy, Systems, and Environmental Change Interventions: Lessons Learned From CDC’s Prevention Research Centers

Overview of attention for article published in Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Evaluating Policy, Systems, and Environmental Change Interventions: Lessons Learned From CDC’s Prevention Research Centers
Published in
Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy, October 2015
DOI 10.5888/pcd12.150281
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The field of public health is increasingly implementing initiatives intended to make policies, systems, and environments (PSEs) more supportive of healthy behaviors, even though the evidence for many of these strategies is only emerging. Our objective was 3-fold: 1) to describe evaluations of PSE-change programs in which the evaluators followed the steps of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health, 2) to share the resulting lessons learned, and 3) to assist future evaluators of PSE-change programs with their evaluation design decisions. Seven Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) applied CDC's framework to evaluate their own PSE-change initiatives. The PRCs followed each step of the framework: 1) engage stakeholders, 2) describe program, 3) focus evaluation design, 4) gather credible evidence, 5) justify conclusions, and 6) ensure use and share lessons learned. Evaluation stakeholders represented a range of sectors, including public health departments, partner organizations, and community members. Public health departments were the primary stakeholders for 4 of the 7 evaluations. Four PRCs used logic models to describe the initiatives being evaluated. Their evaluations typically included both process and outcome questions and used mixed methods. Evaluation findings most commonly focused on contextual factors influencing change (process) and the adoption or implementation of PSE-change strategies (outcome). Evaluators shared lessons learned through various channels to reach local stakeholders and broader public health audiences. Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health is applicable to evaluations of PSE-change initiatives. Using this framework to guide such evaluations builds practice-based evidence for strategies that are increasingly being used to promote healthful behaviors.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Other 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 36 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 20%
Social Sciences 25 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 44 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 August 2024.
All research outputs
#11,470,124
of 34,404,538 outputs
Outputs from Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy
#1,303
of 2,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,817
of 314,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice and Policy
#28
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,404,538 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.