Date post: | 27-May-2015 |
Category: |
Health & Medicine |
Upload: | hoaglina |
View: | 1,254 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Prioritizing Obesity Strategies
Obesity Integration Steering Committee Meetings2.29.12, 3.19.12, 4.2.12
Prioritization Process
When Purpose/Actions
Meeting 1 (2/29) • Getting Started• Agreements For Moving Forward
Between Meetings(e-input)
Survey Coming Tomorrow (due 3/9)• Review/Provide Input on Proposed
Criteria• Identify State Roles for Strategies
Meeting 2 (3/19)9:30am -12:30pm
• Review/Finalize Criteria• Clarify Strategies• Clarify State Roles
Between Meetings(e-input)
Prioritization Survey (sent 3/21, due 3/26)• Rate Strategies Using Final Criteria• Refine Concise Statement
Meeting 3 (4/2)9:30am – 12:30pm
• Share Results of Prioritization • Gather Additional Input for Ex Committee
Agenda ReviewWelcome and Overview
Review/Finalize Criteria
Break
Clarify Strategies and State Roles
Next Steps and Closure
Discussions and DecisionsDiscussion: All encouraged to participate
Decisions: For Today & Prioritization Survey (btwn Meetings 2 & 3)
60% super majority vote, motioned by a steering committee member
One vote per Steering Committee Member
Executive Committee Members, and other observers, do not vote
Steering Committee Voting MembersSector Team Leads or Designee (8 reps from
PSD)
Healthy Eating (2 reps from PSD)
LHAs (5 total: 1 rep each from El Paso, Weld, Boulder, Pueblo, West-Central Partnership)
External Organizations (3 total: 1 rep each from Live Well, Kaiser, Health Foundation)
Review/Finalize Criteria
The “Ask” Regarding Criteria11 prioritization criteria proposed
Asked to make 2 judgments:RATE each criteriaRANK top five criteria
Opportunity to suggest other criteria
19 people responded
Criteria Ratings - Results
Not at all Well Somewhat Well Fairly Well Well Very Well
Rating TakeawaysAll criteria would do fairly well or
better at helping during the prioritization process.
Could potentially combine some criteria: Population Impact AND Expected
Reach? Community Support, Capacity to
Implement, AND Opportunity for Leverage?
Could consider the following additional criteria: Alignment with National Priorities Evidence Level
Criteria Rankings - Results
Ranking TakeawaysRanking a more effective way to
distinguish preferences among criteria that are all helpful.
“Least Helpful” ranking could be misleading – only least helpful among 5 favorites.
At least 60% of responding members chose the following as one of their top 5 criteria: Likelihood of population impact Capacity to Implement
Considerations
Evidence is being published every day.
Executive committee will get: the full list of strategies with their ranks from
the prioritization survey.
Future implementation teams will consider:Applicability to ColoradoResources needed
PSD will keep you informed.
Demonstration of Prioritization Scoring
No right way ~ rather match how you want to make the decision
Rate each strategy against the criteria
Criteria scale: 1 = “Little” to 5 = “Great”
Create a prioritization score from your ratings
= add the ratings on each criteria,
divide by the number of criteria,
divide by the number of respondents (raters)
Expect ties
Demonstration of Prioritization Scoring
Paint your house
Criteria A: True Blue
Criteria B: Easy to clean Sum
Priority Score
Rank using 2 criteria
Rank using 3
Rank with weighting
Rank w/
multiplier
Strategy A 1 3 4 2.0 6 6 6 2
Strategy B 2 3 5 2.5 4 2 2 3
Strategy C 3 2 5 2.5 4 5 5 3
Strategy D 4 5 9 4.5 1 1 1 1
Strategy E 5 3 8 4.0 2 2 3 6
Strategy F 3 3 6 3.0 3 4 3 5
Demonstration of Prioritization Scoring
Criteria A: True Blue
Criteria B: Easy to clean
Criteria C: Longlasting Sum
Priority Score
Rank using 3 criteria
Equal Weight 1 1 1Strategy A 1 3 1 5 1.7 6Strategy B 2 3 5 10 3.3 2Strategy C 3 2 3 8 2.7 5Strategy D 4 5 5 14 4.7 1Strategy E 5 3 2 10 3.3 2Strategy F 3 3 3 9 3.0 4
With 3 criteria
Demonstration of Prioritization Scoring
Criteria A: True Blue
Criteria B: Easy to clean
Criteria C: Longlasting
Criteria C: Longlasting
Priority Score Rank
Weight 1 1 1 1
Strategy A 1 3 1 1 1.5 6
Strategy B 2 3 5 5 3.8 2
Strategy C 3 2 3 3 2.8 5
Strategy D 4 5 5 5 4.8 1
Strategy E 5 3 2 2 3.0 3
Strategy F 3 3 3 3 3.0 3
With 3 criteria and weighting
Demonstration of Prioritization Scoring
With multiplier
Paint your house
Criteria A: True Blue
Criteria B: Easy to clean
Priority Score
Evidence (multiplier)
Final Score Rank
Strategy A 1 3 2.0 proven (4) 8.0 2Strategy B 2 3 2.5 Likely effective
(3)likely effective (3)
7.5 3
Strategy C 3 2 2.5 7.5 3Strategy D 4 5 4.5 promising (2) 9.0 1Strategy E 5 3 4.0 emerging (1) 4.0 6Strategy F 3 3 3.0 promising (2) 6.0 5
Discussion & DecisionDiscussion: Can some of the potential
prioritization criteria be combined based on similarity?
Could potentially combine some criteria:Population Impact AND Expected ReachCommunity Support, Capacity to Implement, AND
Opportunity for Leverage
Decision: Vote on combination(s) suggested.
Discussion of Additional CriteriaCould consider the following additional criteria:
Alignment with National PrioritiesEvidence Level
In a nutshell…Levels of Evidence in PSDProven: systematic or narrative reviews; considers study
design and execution, external validity, body of evidence, and results
Likely Effective: peer review articles in scientific literature; considers study design and execution, external validity, body of evidence, and results
Promising: written program evaluation without formal peer reviews; considers summative evidence of effectiveness, theory, and formative evaluation data
Emerging: ongoing work with little evidence so far, but sound theory and evaluation in place
Not Recommended: evidence of effectiveness is conflicting and/or of poor quality and/or suggestive of harm
Discussion & DecisionDiscussion: How many criteria should be
included in the prioritization rubric? Top 3Top 5All
Decision: Vote on number of criteria to be included in final prioritization rubric.
Discussion & DecisionDiscussion: Should any of the prioritization
criteria be more heavily weighted than others?
Decision: Vote on weighting.
Clarify Strategies and State Roles
The “Ask” Regarding Strategies and CDPHE Roles 58 strategies presented (only included those
with some level of evidence)
Asked to select appropriate CDPHE roles and identify information gaps for each strategy:
Three purposes: Info about CDPHE role may provide information
that will be helpful at a later stage in the EBPH process.
Can we eliminate any strategies based on no CDPHE role?
What information is needed before we can move forward?
Pages 4-13
Notes:
1. Evidence level noted inaccurately on survey for 2 Built Environment Strategies:
• Transportation policy/access to transit
• Open space preservation
2. Diabetes Prevention Program has now been designated as “Proven”
Takeaways
Four roles were most commonly noted for CDPHE: Influence state-level policy with regard to this strategy Provide funding to local or state partners to implement this
strategy Provide guidance and/or technical assistance to local or
state implementation partners Coordinate activities with other state agencies
No strategies met elimination criteria, but the specific CDPHE role was unclear for 8 strategies (see page 5).
Members desire more information about 8 strategies (see pages 6-13)
Literature Review ResultsSECTOR EVIDENCE RATINGS
Schools 7 Likely Effective; 2 Promising; 5 Emerging
Child Care 4 Likely Effective; 3 Emerging; 2 Not Recommended
Food Systems 2 Likely Effective; 3 Promising
Health Systems 2 Proven; 3 Likely Effective; 1 Promising; 1 Emerging
Worksites 5 Proven; 1 Likely Effective
Media 1 Likely Effective; 2 Promising; 2 Emerging; 1 Not Recommended
Community 1 Proven; 5 Likely Effective; 1 Emerging
Built Environment
5 Likely Effective; 2 Emerging
Discussion & DecisionDiscussion: Should strategies where no clear
agreement was reached about a CDPHE role be included or excluded from the prioritization process?
Decision: Vote on whether to eliminate 8 strategies in final prioritization rubric.
Discussion & DecisionDiscussion: Should any strategies not previously identified
by the sector teams be included in the prioritization process?
For each new strategy discussed, need: Description Evidence: Individual Study? Narrative Review? Systematic Review? Potential State Role
Decision: Vote on whether or not there is a state role for each new strategy proposed. If so, the strategy moves to the list to be prioritized.
Final Tally of # of Strategies Moving Forward for
Prioritization
Next Steps:Prioritization Process
When Purpose/Actions
Meeting 1 (2/29) • Getting Started• Agreements For Moving Forward
Between Meetings(e-input)
Survey Coming Tomorrow (due 3/9)• Review/Provide Input on Proposed
Criteria• Identify State Roles for Strategies
Meeting 2 (3/19)9:30am -12:30pm
• Review/Finalize Criteria• Clarify Strategies• Clarify State Roles
Between Meetings(e-input)
Prioritization Survey (sent 3/21, due 3/26)• Rate Strategies Using Final Criteria• Refine Concise Statement
Meeting 3 (4/2)9:30am – 12:30pm
• Share Results of Prioritization • Gather Additional Input for Ex Committee
Thank You and ClosureOn the index card provided let us know
What is still on your mind?
Leave note sheets on table before you leave
For those on the phone: email your responses to: [email protected]