Evaluation Resources for Asthma Programs and Beyond

Samuel Dunklin, MPH¹; Sarah Gill¹; Maureen Wilce¹ (View author affiliations)

Suggested citation for this article: Dunklin S, Gill S, Wilce M. Evaluation Resources for Asthma Programs and Beyond. Prev Chronic Dis 2024;21:240035. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd21.240035.

PEER REVIEWED

Abstract

Evaluation can ensure the quality of public health programs. Systematic efforts to identify and fully engage everyone involved with or affected by a program can provide critical information about asthma programs and the broader environment in which they operate. To assist evaluators working at programs funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC’s) National Asthma Control Program (NACP), we developed a package of tools that build on the CDC’s 1999 Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health. The resulting suite of evaluation tools guides evaluators through a structured but flexible process, engaging a diverse array of interest holders and actively involving them in evaluation planning and implementation, all while strengthening their capacity to meaningfully contribute to the evaluation process. For our newest tool, our team reviewed the recent evaluation literature to create an enhanced version of the 1999 framework that describes important elements of professional evaluation practice. Although the original framework describes the steps to take in conducting an evaluation and the standards for a high-quality evaluation, our enhanced framework includes an explanation of how evaluators should approach their work: by incorporating critical reflection, interpersonal competence, situational awareness, and cultural responsiveness. In this article, we highlight many of the evaluation resources our team has created since the NACP’s inception, culminating in a free e-text called Planting the Seeds of High-Quality Program Evaluation in Public Health. Public health professionals working in many types of programs — not just asthma — may find these resources useful.

Top

Background

Evaluation, the “process of determining the merit, worth, or value of something, or the product of that process” (1), is central to public health practice and is an essential service of public health (2). It is a means for asking and answering important questions about how we can improve the public’s health and be accountable for public funds. Evaluation is also included in several public health professional competency sets (3,4). Accordingly, the demand for evaluation is high, especially among agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services, where evaluation has become a tool that public health practitioners and their partners use to make evidence-informed decisions (5).

Despite the importance of evaluation, research studies suggest that many public health professionals who enter the field through formal academic routes (eg, master’s degree in public health from accredited institutions) may graduate without completing a course in evaluation (6,7). Post graduation, the availability of professional development opportunities and funds to support them is limited. As a result, public health agencies and organizations often do not have ready access to staff with the skills and knowledge needed to competently plan and conduct evaluations or to commission and monitor evaluation contracts. It is this gap that we, evaluators in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Asthma Control Program (NACP), set out to fill, both through tailored technical assistance for our partners and the creation of a variety of resources.

As NACP celebrates 25 years of public service, we recognize the importance of documenting what has been accomplished during those years. This article is not only a historical account of the evaluation team’s time in NACP, but also a reflection on a selection of the publicly available tools and materials that have been developed. We hope that this article will serve as one of those tools to further support the work that you perform or give you a moment’s pause while you discover something new.

Top

Evaluation as a Tool for Systematically Learning How to Improve Programs

Evaluation conducted in keeping with professional standards is a responsive and collaborative undertaking. All 4 of what we consider foundational documents for the evaluation field call on evaluators to engage with interest holders to guide their work. These are the American Evaluation Association’s (AEA) Guiding Principles, the Program Evaluation Standards (created by the Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation and used broadly in the field to define standards for high-quality evaluation), AEA’s Public Statement on Cultural Competence, and the AEA Evaluator Competencies (8–11). In developing evaluation capacity-building materials for its funded partners, the NACP relied heavily on these documents and mirrored their collaborative approach.

NACP partners include the staffs of state, local, and territorial health departments and their many partners as well as staffs of national nongovernment organizations. Staff members responsible for evaluation activities in these organizations have varying backgrounds and levels of evaluation experience and expertise. Many come with epidemiology or research backgrounds and bring some of the technical skills required for evaluations, but they are often unfamiliar with the context in which those skills are to be applied.

In NACP’s early days, few resources were available to respond to partners’ requests for guidance on what was often, for them, a new responsibility. A new tool at the time was CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health (CDC Framework) (12). This framework set forth a flexible 6-step process for evaluating all aspects of public health programming. The framework emphasized the inclusion of interest holders — people affected by the program or its evaluation — and the importance of using an evaluation’s processes and findings to guide program improvement. Partly because of its apparent simplicity, the graphic depicting the evaluation steps and standards became an icon for many public health professionals. Even so, partners reported that they had difficulty applying the framework.

In response, NACP hired a team of evaluators to help build evaluation capacity internally and in the asthma programs it funded. Initially, staff members delivered introductory trainings focused on demystifying evaluation (13). As partners expanded the scope of their evaluation activities, we recognized a need for more comprehensive capacity building. The evaluation team tapped NACP program staff members who had an interest in evaluation to help tailor our approach to the programs’ needs, and we started to build out a suite of resources. Over the ensuing decade and a half, we created the tools to build these resources (Table 1). As you read, we encourage you to imagine how you might use evaluation generally and these tools specifically to demonstrate your program’s value and identify ways to improve your impact on the public’s health.

Top

Tools for Learning and Growing Through Evaluation

Initially, NACP evaluation team members, dubbed evaluation technical advisors (ETAs), set out to develop a user-friendly guide that would walk novice evaluators through the full evaluation process; they would learn evaluation — build their evaluation capacity — as they used the tools. To ensure relevance, we worked with asthma program partners who served as advisors and reviewers, a process we continue. We called the guide, which evolved into a series of modules, Learning and Growing Through Evaluation. The title was intended to reinforce the idea that evaluation is a tool that can identify a program’s strengths and areas for growth.

We published the first module of Learning and Growing Through Evaluation in 2009, at the start of a new cooperative agreement (14,15). Module 1 introduced the concept of strategic evaluation planning, that is, working with interest holders to anticipate information needs throughout the 5-year cooperative agreement and creating a comprehensive portfolio of evaluations to meet those needs. At the time, longer-term evaluation planning like this was uncommon in the field, so we created a strategic evaluation plan (SEP) template that included fill-in-the-blank sections along with guidance on how to complete the plan. For example, one key task in creating a SEP is prioritizing evaluation investments among the many potential program elements that could be evaluated. The template aligns with sections in the module that describe various prioritization methods and offers sample criteria, like cost and equity.

The SEP template includes a timeline that encourages interest holders to map when evaluation findings will be needed against when they will be available. This can avoid timing missteps, like wrapping up an evaluation a month after a related grant application is due or starting to think about an evaluation near the end of a grant cycle, long past when relevant people and information are available. The timeline facilitates a cross-evaluation strategy whereby data collected in one evaluation might be leveraged in another. Finally, the SEP timeline helps program developers plan their evaluation capacity-building activities, looking ahead at evaluation needs to ensure that appropriate staffing or staff training are available when needed.

The first module also provides an evaluation plan template and guidance for evaluating the activities that were identified in the SEP as warranting evaluation. Unlike many evaluation plan templates that cover little more than data collection and analysis, the individual evaluation plan template lays out a blueprint for implementing all 6 steps of an evaluation. It starts with an interest holder assessment and engagement table and ends with guidance on documenting the evaluation’s implementation and acknowledging contributors.

The second Learning and Growing module moves beyond planning to provide strategies and tools for implementing and managing evaluations (16). It offers tips on addressing common challenges such as budgeting, and it introduces an action plan template that documents strategies for responding to an evaluation’s finding. We tailored subsequent modules to the strategies and activities asthma programs were using in their work, such as partnerships (17) and surveillance (18). The sixth and most recent module covers economic evaluation (19). Each module contains relevant tools and examples to facilitate evaluation processes while building evaluation capacity.

Early on, we were fortunate to collaborate with the US Environmental Protection Agency to develop a series of training webinars (20) that partners could access anytime, providing an avenue for continuous and sustainable engagement with the steps of the evaluation framework. The webinars range in length from 15 to 65 minutes, and some of the shorter webinars are ideal for funding recipients to share with their partners who need only a brief introduction to evaluation. Although the webinars provided general overviews of evaluation, we saw a need to understand and develop materials tailored to partner capacity.

With ETAs participating in monthly calls with partners, we had some insight into the types of evaluation activities partners were conducting, which in turn informed our materials development. To formalize this process, we created an evaluator self-assessment (21). ETAs and evaluators working in funded programs completed the self-assessment and flagged areas where professional development and additional tools would be helpful. A benefit of the assessment was that it highlighted instances in which novice staff members already possessed important skills, adding to their confidence in a new role. We also discovered the wealth of expertise among our partners, allowing us to draw on them as teachers for our community of practice.

One of the primary ETA roles is to review our partners’ evaluation plans — to add an external perspective to that of interest holders closely connected to the program. We discovered that evaluators had a difficult time understanding the differences among evaluation questions, research questions, and survey questions. We searched the evaluation literature and compiled an initial list of the characteristics of good evaluation questions, that is, questions that are likely to produce useful information. We then workshopped the list with several groups of experienced evaluators to establish agreed-upon criteria. From this, we created the Good Evaluation Questions Checklist (22). Evaluators and interest holders can use the checklist to sharpen the focus of their evaluations, review the evaluation’s standards, and document the rationale for their planning decisions.

Next, we took on the challenge of translating the literature on culturally responsive evaluation, which is “a holistic framework for centering evaluation in culture” (23). We partnered with CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention to create the guide, Practical Strategies for Culturally Competent Evaluation (24), and an accompanying tip sheet (25). The tools support evaluators in responding to the specific cultural contexts in which programs are working. Practicing evaluation in a culturally responsive way is important on principle and, instrumentally, it improves the validity of evaluative inferences. The Cultural Competence Assessment Tool (CCAT) (26) is a related tool that helps staff in state and local health departments assess their capacity to appropriately apply the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services standards (27).

One of our current focuses is on producing evaluation briefs (28–30), which provide short overviews of common evaluation topics. For example, when CDC added a performance monitoring component to its cooperative agreements, we noticed that partners had a hard time understanding how evaluation and performance monitoring work together. In response, we created a 4-page primer on the topic. Another current focus has been the co-development of an evaluation training series based on our materials in conjunction with the Climate and Health Program.

Top

Moving Upstream

To date, the primary audience for our resources has been practicing public health professionals. Our tools are designed to be practical: to enable anyone to competently perform a wide range of technical evaluative tasks and to give them tools for understanding and responding to the often-political contexts in which evaluations occur. In 2019, when we set out to update our Learning and Growing through Evaluation modules, we saw the opportunity to augment our materials with the theoretical and conceptual foundations of the evaluation field, to create a tool that would fill that gap in many public health professionals’ academic training. To this end, we published a free online evaluation textbook, Planting the Seeds for High-Quality Program Evaluation in Public Health (31).

The e-text marries theory and practice in a way that practitioners can easily apply. Though it is suitable for use in undergraduate and graduate courses, each chapter is informative for many audiences, from novice to advanced. Chapters end with review questions and skill-building exercises, and they include many of the tools and templates introduced in the modules. After reading the e-text, people who are brand new to evaluation will have a solid foundation for practice. Those who are more advanced will acquire skills and knowledge about evaluation approaches and techniques that they likely have not encountered. Our goal was to empower readers to have a better understanding of what is entailed in carrying out high-quality evaluations and what they can do to support and sustain high-quality evaluation practices in their organizations.

In creating the e-text, we recognized the need to update the original CDC Framework to include important advances in the discipline of evaluation. In our enhanced evaluation framework (Figure) we surrounded the steps and standards from the original framework with the characteristics that are important for evaluators to embody as they carry out their work: critical reflection, cultural responsiveness, situational awareness, and interpersonal competence. As evaluators, our ability to be aware of ourselves, others, and the broader environments in which we are working — the how of our practice — is equally as important as the technical steps we take. Our enhanced framework also recognizes the need to assess context (adding a step 0) and build evaluation capacity to ensure all interest holders can equitably engage in the evaluation process.

Figure.
Enhanced evaluation framework. [A text version of this figure is available.]

Our enhanced framework resonated with many participants in a session at the 2022 AEA conference. Participants contributed their strategies and suggestions for implementing the 4 hows of evaluation practice (Table 2). As CDC’s Framework did in 1999, the e-text and our enhanced framework establish a new stepping-off point for using evaluation as a tool to make our public health programs more effective and equitable.

Top

Evidence of growth

Although we conducted an evaluation of our tailored technical assistance, we have not formally evaluated our collection of resources. Nevertheless, we have seen evidence of their influence among our partners in funded asthma programs and in the broader evaluation field. From the outset, our materials have framed evaluation as an opportunity to learn and grow rather than as a compliance activity done to meet a funder requirement. The response from our partners suggests that they see utility in this approach. In the spirit of learning, partners regularly contribute to AEA365, AEA’s blog; they often share their work at AEA’s annual meeting; and 4 state asthma programs voluntarily participated in a study on evaluative thinking, which was featured in New Directions for Evaluation, one of AEA’s flagship journals (32). And even though CDC’s cooperative agreements no longer include staffing requirements, most, if not all, funded partners dedicate a portion of their funding awards to support evaluation staffing.

NACP partners are applying what they learn to improve their programs. According to performance monitoring data NACP collected for its 5-year cooperative agreement that ended in 2019, partners took 426 actions based on their evaluation findings. Almost half of these actions related to improving, expanding, or sustaining specific interventions; other actions related to improving program infrastructure (surveillance, partnerships). We have published stories about our partners’ evaluation work in a document called Learning as We Grow (33,34); it is both a celebration of their work and a guide for others who are building out their evaluation capacity.

The reach of our materials has extended beyond the NACP. For example, in 2021, Thomas and Campbell included our Checklist for Assessing Your Evaluation Questions in their evaluation textbook, Evaluation in Today’s World (35); the text also referenced Practical Strategies for Culturally Competent Evaluation. Lovato and Hutchinson link to our webinars in their Evaluation for Leaders course (36). We have also received informal feedback from people who have put our tools to the test. Our materials have been called user friendly, concise, and accessible, and, in an especially gratifying email from a funded partner, they were described as “an exemplary demonstration of how to put the power of evaluation in the hands of people doing essential work within state health departments, and beyond.”

Top

Challenges and looking forward

Our tools are designed and vetted to ensure that they are user friendly and make evaluation approachable; however, even with these supports, evaluation can be challenging. The participatory approach fundamental to our enhanced framework takes time. Evaluation interest holders must be engaged and committed to a learning process. The day-to-day demands of implementing programs often seem to leave little time for conducting high-quality evaluations and acting on their findings.

We emphasize that evaluation is a tool for learning and growing, and still it can be difficult to dispel the notion that evaluation is a compliance activity, or an activity designed only to expose flaws rather than program strengths. Our hope is that as our partners and others in public health use our tools, they will develop an appreciative lens, seeing the assets and potential their programs possess. We hope they will see evaluation as a useful and grounding tool, especially during public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic.

The tools developed and highlighted here will continue to be free and publicly available, serving as resources and guides to bolster evaluation practice. As evaluators in the NACP, we will continue to listen, respond, and adapt. We will continue to shine the light on evaluation as a tool to “make visible oppression and possibility,” in the words of evaluation scholar Donna Mertens (37). Evaluation is not a solo task. It is a difficult and time-consuming endeavor, a rewarding endeavor, that requires people from all walks of life to come together. As we look toward the future, we will be forever grateful for the colleagues who have, and who will, continue to learn and grow with us.

Top

Acknowledgments

We thank all the evaluation team members and partners who have contributed to developing these tools over the years. We also thank participants at AEA 2022 whose contributions are represented in Table 2. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of CDC. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of this article. The authors received no external financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this article. No copyrighted material, surveys, instruments, or tools were used in this article.

Top

Author Information

Corresponding Author: Samuel Dunklin, MPH, Asthma and Air Quality Branch, Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, MS S106-6, Atlanta, Georgia (qaf3@cdc.gov).

Author Affiliations: ¹Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice, Asthma and Air Quality Branch, Atlanta, Georgia.

Top

References

1. Scriven M. Evaluation thesaurus, 4^th edition. Sage Publications. 1991.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 10 essential public health services. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/public-health-gateway/php/about/index.html
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention & Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Applied epidemiology competencies. 2008. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cste.org/group/CSTECDCAEC
4. National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. Areas of responsibility, competencies and sub-competencies for health education specialist practice analysis II 2020 (HESPA II 2020). Accessed on December 8, 2023. hespa_competencies_and_sub-competencies_052020.pdf (speakcdn.com)
5. Lemire S, Fierro LA, Kinarsky AR, Fujita-Conrads E, Christie CA. The U.S. federal evaluation market. New Dir Eval. 2018;2018(160):63–80.
6. Fierro LA, Christie CA. Understanding evaluation training in schools and programs of public health. Am J Eval. 2011;32(3):448–468.
7. Hobson KA, Coryn CLS, Fierro LA, Sherwood-Laughlin CM. Instruction of evaluation competencies in Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH)-accredited Master of Public Health (MPH) degree programs. Am J Eval. 2019;40(4):590–606.
8. American Evaluation Association. (2018). Guiding principles for evaluators. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.eval.org/About/Guiding-Principles
9. Yarbrough DB, Shulha LM, Hopson RK, Caruthers FA. The program evaluation standards. Sage; 2011. Accessed June 10, 2024. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/the-program-evaluation-standards/book230597
10. American Evaluation Association. (2011). American Evaluation Association statement on cultural competence in evaluation. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.eval.org/Community/Volunteer/Statement-on-Cultural-Competence-in-Evaluation
11. American Evaluation Association. The 2018 AEA evaluator competencies. Updated 2018. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.eval.org/Portals/0/Docs/AEA%20Evaluator%20Competencies.pdf
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1999;48(RR-11):1–40. Accessed December 8, 2023. PubMed doi:10.1177/1098214019845510
13. Fierro LA. Evaluation Demystified. Presented at: State Asthma Program Meeting. April 1, 2008. Houston, Texas.
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Addressing Asthma from a Public Health Perspective: apply online. Accessed December 8,2023. https://www.usgrants.org/opportunity/addressing-asthma-from-a-public-health-perspective/22707
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Learning and growing through evaluation: asthma program evaluation guide. Module 1: Planning Evaluations. 2021. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/php/program_eval/eval_guide/AsthmaProgramGuide_Mod1.pdf
16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Learning and growing through evaluation: asthma program evaluation guide. Module 2: Implementing Evaluations. 2021. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/php/program_eval/eval_guide/AsthmaProgramGuide_Mod2_1.pdf
17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Learning and growing through evaluation: asthma program evaluation guide. Module 3: Evaluating Partnerships. 2021. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/php/program_eval/eval_guide/AsthmaProgramGuide_Mod3.pdf
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Learning and growing through evaluation: asthma program evaluation guide. Module 4: Evaluating Asthma Surveillance. 2021. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/php/program_eval/eval_guide/AsthmaProgramGuide_Mod4.pdf
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Learning and growing through evaluation: asthma program evaluation guide. Module 6: Economic Evaluation for Asthma Programs. 2021. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/php/program_eval/eval_guide/asthmaprogramguide_mod6.pdf
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Practical evaluation using the CDC evaluation framework — a webinar series for asthma and other public health programs. 2018. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/php/program_eval/webinars.html
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluator self-assessment. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/evaluation/tools/self_assessment/index.htm
22. CDC National Asthma Control Program. Good evaluation questions: a checklist to help focus your evaluation. 2013. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/media/pdfs/2024/05/AssessingEvaluationQuestionChecklist.pdf
23. Frierson HT, Hood S, Hughes GB, Thomas VG. A guide to conducting culturally responsive evaluations. In J. Frechtling, editor. The 2010 user-friendly handbook for project evaluation. National Science Foundation; 2010. p. 75–96.
24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Practical Strategies for Culturally Competent Evaluation. 2014. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/media/pdfs/2024/05/cultural_competence_guide.pdf
25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Program Evaluation Tip Sheet: Integrating Cultural Competence into Evaluation. 2014. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/media/pdfs/2024/05/cultural_competence_tip_sheet.pdf
26. Cultural Competence Assessment Tool for State Asthma Programs and Partners. National Asthma Control Program, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/media/pdfs/2024/05/CCAT.pdf
27. US Department of Health and Human Services. National culturally and linguistically appropriate services standards. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://thinkculturalhealth.hhs.gov/clas/standards
28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Enhanced evaluation framework. 2022. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/php/program_eval/briefs/Enhanced-Evaluation-Framework-H.pdf
29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Program Evaluation’s Foundational Documents. 2023. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/php/program_eval/briefs/Eval-foundations-brief-508.pdf
30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Performance measurement & program evaluation: a suite of evaluative insights. 2021. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/php/program_eval/briefs/PerformanceMeasurementProgramEvaluationBrief-508.pdf
31. Wilce M, Fierro LA, Gill S, Perkins A, Kuwahara R, Barrera-Disler S, et al. Planting the Seeds for High-Quality Program Evaluation in Public Health. eBook. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2021. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/program_eval/PlantingSeeds_eTextbook-508.pdf
32. Fierro LA, Codd H, Gill S, Pham PK, Grandjean Targos PT, Wilce M. Evaluative thinking in practice: The National Asthma Control Program. New Directions for Evaluation. 2018;2018(158):49–72. PubMed doi:10.1002/ev.20322
33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Learning As We Grow: Evaluation Highlights from National Asthma Control Program Grantees. 2015. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/34379
34. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Learning As We Grow: Evaluation Highlights from National Asthma Control Program Grantees, 2018. 2018. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/78748
35. Thomas V, Campbell P. Evaluation in today’s world. Sage. 2021. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/evaluation-in-today%E2%80%99s-world/book263463
36. Lovato C, Hutchinson K. Evaluation for leaders online course. University of British Columbia. Updated April 2023. Accessed December 8, 2023. https://evaluationforleaders.org
37. Mertens D. Transformative mixed methods evaluations. Qual Inq. 2010;6(16):469–474.

Top

Tables

Abbreviation: CDC, Centers for disease Control and Prevention.
^a At the time of this publication, all materials are available through asthma evaluation website (https://www.cdc.gov/national-asthma-control-program/php/program_eval/index.html). If you have any issues reaching the materials or would like to provide questions or feedback on specific materials, please contact the corresponding author, Samuel Dunklin at qaf3@cdc.gov.

Top