对痴呆症患者及其家庭护理人员的社区计划进行评估。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 GERONTOLOGY
Allison R Heid, Steven H Zarit
{"title":"对痴呆症患者及其家庭护理人员的社区计划进行评估。","authors":"Allison R Heid, Steven H Zarit","doi":"10.1093/geront/gnae145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While the gold standard for intervention science is the randomized controlled trial (RCT), there is growing emphasis on the practical implementation and evaluation of evidence-based programs into community agencies. Assessment of program efficacy by community-based organizations can confirm planned delivery of services, implementation fidelity, and demonstrate positive outcomes, which can provide justification for funding. Methods and measures used in an RCT, however, often cannot be implemented in non-research settings and different approaches are needed. This manuscript reviews the emerging literature on program evaluation work and draws upon the authors' experiences conducting evaluations with three community-based organizations funded by Administration for Community Living to implement programs for individuals with dementia and their family care partners. This manuscript argues for an examination of the expectations of evaluation efforts for translation of research-based trials to practice and emphasizes three main strategies for assessment: (1) Development of brief tailored assessments; (2) Measuring fidelity of implementation of the program; and (3) Measuring acceptability of the program to clients.</p>","PeriodicalId":51347,"journal":{"name":"Gerontologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conducting Assessments of Community-Based Programs for Individuals with Dementia and their Family Caregivers.\",\"authors\":\"Allison R Heid, Steven H Zarit\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/geront/gnae145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While the gold standard for intervention science is the randomized controlled trial (RCT), there is growing emphasis on the practical implementation and evaluation of evidence-based programs into community agencies. Assessment of program efficacy by community-based organizations can confirm planned delivery of services, implementation fidelity, and demonstrate positive outcomes, which can provide justification for funding. Methods and measures used in an RCT, however, often cannot be implemented in non-research settings and different approaches are needed. This manuscript reviews the emerging literature on program evaluation work and draws upon the authors' experiences conducting evaluations with three community-based organizations funded by Administration for Community Living to implement programs for individuals with dementia and their family care partners. This manuscript argues for an examination of the expectations of evaluation efforts for translation of research-based trials to practice and emphasizes three main strategies for assessment: (1) Development of brief tailored assessments; (2) Measuring fidelity of implementation of the program; and (3) Measuring acceptability of the program to clients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gerontologist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gerontologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnae145\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gerontologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnae145","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然干预科学的黄金标准是随机对照试验(RCT),但人们越来越重视在社区机构中实际实施和评估循证计划。社区机构对计划效果进行评估,可以确认计划提供的服务、实施的忠实性,并展示积极的成果,从而为资金提供依据。然而,在 RCT 中使用的方法和措施往往无法在非研究环境中实施,因此需要采用不同的方法。本手稿回顾了有关项目评估工作的新兴文献,并借鉴了作者在三个社区组织中开展评估的经验,这三个组织由社区生活管理局(Administration for Community Living)资助,为痴呆症患者及其家庭护理伙伴实施项目。本手稿主张对评估工作的期望进行审查,以便将基于研究的试验转化为实践,并强调了评估的三大策略:(1)开发简短的定制评估;(2)衡量计划实施的忠实度;以及(3)衡量客户对计划的接受度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conducting Assessments of Community-Based Programs for Individuals with Dementia and their Family Caregivers.

While the gold standard for intervention science is the randomized controlled trial (RCT), there is growing emphasis on the practical implementation and evaluation of evidence-based programs into community agencies. Assessment of program efficacy by community-based organizations can confirm planned delivery of services, implementation fidelity, and demonstrate positive outcomes, which can provide justification for funding. Methods and measures used in an RCT, however, often cannot be implemented in non-research settings and different approaches are needed. This manuscript reviews the emerging literature on program evaluation work and draws upon the authors' experiences conducting evaluations with three community-based organizations funded by Administration for Community Living to implement programs for individuals with dementia and their family care partners. This manuscript argues for an examination of the expectations of evaluation efforts for translation of research-based trials to practice and emphasizes three main strategies for assessment: (1) Development of brief tailored assessments; (2) Measuring fidelity of implementation of the program; and (3) Measuring acceptability of the program to clients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gerontologist
Gerontologist GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
8.80%
发文量
171
期刊介绍: The Gerontologist, published since 1961, is a bimonthly journal of The Gerontological Society of America that provides a multidisciplinary perspective on human aging by publishing research and analysis on applied social issues. It informs the broad community of disciplines and professions involved in understanding the aging process and providing care to older people. Articles should include a conceptual framework and testable hypotheses. Implications for policy or practice should be highlighted. The Gerontologist publishes quantitative and qualitative research and encourages manuscript submissions of various types including: research articles, intervention research, review articles, measurement articles, forums, and brief reports. Book and media reviews, International Spotlights, and award-winning lectures are commissioned by the editors.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信