PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11729628

Evaluating evaluation: implications for assessing quality.

M McCoy·O D Hargie
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Aims to review the literature on evaluation and to examine research, theory and practice in relation to two key questions: What is evaluation and What is its contribution? Evaluation is increasingly a contemporary concern owing to growing demand for verification of programme results and the current political and economic climate. With the growth in evaluation activity in diverse fields, especially within new domains, those involved in health-care delivery can benefit from an overview of the universal fundamentals of research and theory that translate into improved practice. To evaluate effectively, there is a need for a full understanding of evaluation's nature, purposes and concepts. Identifies and reviews the key subdomains of evaluation, namely: definitions; theoretical underpinning; formulation of goals and objectives; specification of the programme; and cost-benefit analysis.

Explore related subjects

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansOrganizational ObjectivesProgram EvaluationSystems TheoryTotal Quality ManagementUnited StatesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M McCoy, O D Hargie. 2001. Evaluating evaluation: implications for assessing quality.. https://doi.org/10.1108/09526860110409081

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Low-cost on-the-job peer training of nurses improved immunization coverage in Indonesia.

In Indonesia responsibility for immunizations is placed on local government health centres and on the nurses who provide the immunizations at each centre. An on-the-job peer training programme for these nurses, which was designed to improve the immunization performance of poorly performing health centres in terms of coverage and practice in Maluku province, was evaluated. Experienced immunization nurses were sent to health centres where nurses were inexperienced or performing poorly; the experienced nurses spent 1-2 weeks providing on-the-job training for the less experienced ones. An evaluation of the 13 centres that participated in the programme and the 95 that did not found that the programme increased both immunization coverage and the quality of practice. Coverage of diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT), polio, and measles vaccinations rose by about 39% in all 13 participating centres when compared with non-participating centres, and by about 54% in the 11 centres that had a functioning transportation system during the year after training. These results reflect increases in the actual number of doses given and improvements in the accuracy of reports. Potential threats to the study's validity were examined and found not to be significant. The out-of-pocket cost of the training programme was about US$ 53 per trainee or about US$ 0.05 per additional vaccine reported to have been given. The marginal cost per additional fully immunized child was estimated to be US$ 0.50.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2002

Quality of systematic reviews of economic evaluations in health care.

CONTEXT: Reviews performed almost a decade ago showed considerable gaps in the quality of reporting and methods applied to economic evaluations of health care interventions. Measures taken by the research community to address the issue included the promulgation of guidelines and the publicizing of good practice in economic evaluation. METHODS: To assess the quality of methods of systematic reviews, economic evaluations in health care, and reporting methods, we conducted full-text searches of private and public databases for the period 1990 through March 2001 and corresponded with researchers active in the field. A total of 102 reports were identified, but only 39 were included. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed by a 6-item checklist. RESULTS: Quality of review methods was reasonable, but more attention needs to be paid to search methods and standardization of evaluation instruments. The reviews found consistent evidence of serious methodological flaws in a significant number of economic evaluations. Lack of clear descriptions of methods, lack of explanation and justification for the framework and approach used, and low-quality estimates of effectiveness for the interventions evaluated were the most frequent flaws. Modest improvements in quality of conducting and reporting economic evaluations appear to have taken place in the last decade. CONCLUSIONS: Proper allocation of resources on the basis of economic evaluations remains uncertain. Editorial teams and regulatory bodies should perform quality assurance based on a single widely accepted and validated standard instrument.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2002

Cost-effectiveness of screening for the factor V Leiden mutation in pregnant women.

The factor V Leiden (FVL) mutation is associated with vascular complications in pregnancy, and routine screening of all pregnant women has been suggested. We did a prospective, unselected study in 967 pregnant women to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening all women, or only those with a personal or family history of venous thrombosis (n=113). When anticoagulant prophylaxis was assumed to effect a 50% reduction in vascular complications, we recorded an additional management cost of 3768 pounds sterling with selective screening and 39,841 pounds sterling with universal screening. This additional cost would result in prevention of less than one and three vascular events,respectively. Our findings, therefore, suggest that screening of pregnant women for the FVL mutation is not cost-effective.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗