NIOSH Healthcare and Social Assistance Program: expert panel evaluation.

Details

• Personal Author:
  Cornman D ; Dearing J ; Eaton K ; Palka D ; Rosen J ; Velardi J
• Description:
  Background: The National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) is a public health agency within the Federal Government responsible for conducting research to reduce worker illness and injury and advance worker well-being; to promote safe and healthy workers through interventions, recommendations and capacity building; and to enhance international worker safety and health through global collaborations. NIOSH is the steward of the National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA), a partnership program to stimulate innovative research and improved workplace practices. In developing the national agenda, NIOSH and a broad range of stakeholders work together to identify occupational safety and health research priorities for each industry sector. The work of NORA is carried out by councils, co-chaired by NIOSH and an external partner. For the Healthcare and Social Assistance Sector (HCSA), the mission is to reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities among workers in the healthcare and social assistance sector program. A panel (see page 3) was formed and convened to review the relevance and impact of NIOSH's HCSA Sector Program for the period of 2006-2016. Scoring Model: NIOSH has adopted a slightly modified version of a program evaluation approach known as contribution analysis. This approach seeks to identify a reasonable association between program activities and observed outcomes to establish the degree to which the program made a difference. Panel members received an orientation and overview of the contribution analysis model prior to conducting the evaluation. Scoring Process: The evaluation panel chair was engaged to recruit a panel, conduct a review process and produce a report based on the provided scoring methodology. Membership eligibility required participants to have no conflicts of interest with the NIOSH program, and this was confirmed by receipt of a signed conflict-of-interest form from each member. The panel composition required the inclusion of at least one evaluation expert, at least one translation science expert, and two to three subject matter experts in related areas. In addition, panel members were selected to represent a balance of individuals from academia, labor, and industry. Once assembled, the panel members (listed on page 3) participated in a webinar to receive an overview of the evaluation model and project timeline. Thereafter, the panel received a comprehensive Evidence Package for 2006-2016 that provided detailed and factual information about the program work and results, and clarified that the present review was to exclude the program areas of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Care, and Social Assistance. Lastly, the panel members had a half-day, in-person meeting with NIOSH staff in Atlanta, Georgia, where they were presented with summary overviews of the work and results from each of the program components. Following the presentation, panel members convened in-person, for a full day, to discuss preliminary observations based on both their review of the provided materials and the NIOSH staff presentations. Panel members then independently studied and appraised all materials and provided individual scores for relevance and impact as well as supportive rationale for their scores. Finally, scores were averaged to issue a single Relevance Score and a single Impact Score (means). In addition, a Total Program Score was calculated, which is the average (mean) of the sum of the scores for both relevance and impact (see Appendix 1). Score: The mean Relevance Score was 4.5 on a 5-point scale, with "1" indicating the rationale for the activities completed by the program are not justified and "5" indicating the rationale for the activities completed by the program are highly justified. The mean Impact Score was 3.5 on a 5-point scale, with "1" indicating research activities and outputs do not result in or are not likely to have any application and "5" indicating the research program has made major contribution(s) to worker health and safety on the basis of end outcomes or well-accepted intermediate outcomes. The Overall Program Score was 8.0. All scores are rounded to the nearest 0.5 increment.
• Subjects:
  Accidents, Occupational Electricity Epidemiology Hazardous Substances Nuclear Power Plants Occupational Health Paint Preceptorship Safety Workplace
• Keywords:
  Healthcare And Social Assistance Sector Research Program Health Care Workers Intervention National Occupational Research Agenda NORA Review Process Worker Health
• Publisher:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Document Type:
  Text
• Funding:
  Contract
• Genre:
  Other
• Place as Subject:
  Connecticut ; Florida ; Georgia ; Michigan ; New York ; OSHA Region 1 ; OSHA Region 2 ; OSHA Region 4 ; OSHA Region 5 ; Rhode Island
• CIO:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Topic:
  Workplace Safety & Health
• Location:
  North America
• Pages in Document:
  1-32
• NIOSHTIC Number:
  nn:20057121
• Citation:
  Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, contract 200-2016-F-89983, 2017 Oct; :1-32
• Federal Fiscal Year:
  2018
• Peer Reviewed:
  False
• Source Full Name:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Collection(s):
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:3dae8be38a1be14aaf78ee50ac951e416dd1895d53303ae68f892668c71d806fd42ffcf20bb43ac4e2de6b917eaca0255b1dc2460b15ca3507f5cc1352c68366
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/181791/cdc_181791_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 294.48 KB ]