Commentary - A Synthesis of Qualitative Research in Program Evaluation: Considerations for a Community-Engaged Approach.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Mimi M Kim, Roland J Thorpe, Keith E Whitfield
{"title":"Commentary - A Synthesis of Qualitative Research in Program Evaluation: Considerations for a Community-Engaged Approach.","authors":"Mimi M Kim, Roland J Thorpe, Keith E Whitfield","doi":"10.1177/01632787251357596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Qualitative research methodologies offer critical contextual insights into community-engaged program evaluations, addressing limitations in solely quantitative approaches. While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are inherently rigorous, their design does not consider nuanced contextual factors and lived experiences that are valuable to understanding a program's impact on community and health outcomes within diverse populations. In this theoretical discussion, we posit that qualitative methods, particularly when grounded in a Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework, foster trust and collaboration, yielding richer, more community-specific data to enhance program evaluation. We also provide evidence-based, practical consideration for conducting qualitative research for community-engaged program evaluations. We explore various qualitative approaches and their application in program evaluations. We highlight the iterative nature of qualitative data analysis and emphasize the importance of qualitative methodological rigor - including coding, triangulation, and member checking - to ensure the program evaluation's community value, credibility, and deeper contextual evaluation. Ultimately, we underscore the value of integrating qualitative methods throughout a program's lifecycle for comprehensive assessments, improved program effectiveness, and enhanced equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"1632787251357596"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787251357596","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Qualitative research methodologies offer critical contextual insights into community-engaged program evaluations, addressing limitations in solely quantitative approaches. While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are inherently rigorous, their design does not consider nuanced contextual factors and lived experiences that are valuable to understanding a program's impact on community and health outcomes within diverse populations. In this theoretical discussion, we posit that qualitative methods, particularly when grounded in a Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework, foster trust and collaboration, yielding richer, more community-specific data to enhance program evaluation. We also provide evidence-based, practical consideration for conducting qualitative research for community-engaged program evaluations. We explore various qualitative approaches and their application in program evaluations. We highlight the iterative nature of qualitative data analysis and emphasize the importance of qualitative methodological rigor - including coding, triangulation, and member checking - to ensure the program evaluation's community value, credibility, and deeper contextual evaluation. Ultimately, we underscore the value of integrating qualitative methods throughout a program's lifecycle for comprehensive assessments, improved program effectiveness, and enhanced equity.

评论-项目评估定性研究的综合:对社区参与方法的考虑。
定性研究方法为社区参与的项目评估提供了关键的背景见解,解决了单独定量方法的局限性。虽然随机对照试验(rct)本质上是严格的,但它们的设计并没有考虑细微的背景因素和生活经历,而这些因素和经历对于理解项目对不同人群的社区和健康结果的影响是有价值的。在这一理论讨论中,我们假设定性方法,特别是基于社区参与性研究(CBPR)框架的方法,可以促进信任和合作,产生更丰富、更具体的社区数据,以加强项目评估。我们还为社区参与项目评估的定性研究提供了基于证据的实际考虑。我们探索各种定性方法及其在项目评估中的应用。我们强调定性数据分析的迭代性质,并强调定性方法严谨性的重要性——包括编码、三角测量和成员检查——以确保项目评估的社区价值、可信度和更深层次的上下文评估。最后,我们强调在整个项目生命周期中整合定性方法的价值,以进行全面评估、改进项目有效性和增强公平性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信