For the first time, from December 12–14, 2012, the Maternal and Child Health Epidemiology Program/Division of Reproductive Health (DRH)/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CityMatCH, and the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB)/Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) co-hosted the 18th Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Epidemiology and 22nd CityMatCH MCH Urban Leadership Conference (referred to as ‘the Conference’ [1]). The goal of the Conference was to advance partnerships in MCH data, practice, and policy; ultimately, the Conference offered a platform for sharing information, enhancing knowledge, and generating new ideas for improving the health and well-being of mothers and children. By developing a collaborative co-hosted Conference, partnering agencies were able to integrate scientific and programmatic/policy areas in the field of MCH into one venue. Because this was a combined Conference, the Planning Committee was able to implement a policy and program track of seminars, symposia, and breakout sessions which complemented the epidemiology track traditionally offered to attendees. Additional knowledge and skill-based development opportunities for MCH professionals included pre-Conference trainings devoted to scientific writing, spatial analysis, quality improvement, and leadership. These trainings were followed by the multi-day Conference.

Evaluation has become critical to understanding the usefulness, impact, and influence of conference content to professionals applying concepts in the real-world setting. Long-term follow up on knowledge and skills obtained during conferences is critical for determining conference impacts [2, 3]. Additionally, Neves et al. [2] have identified five elements essential in conference evaluation: (1) pre-determining conference objectives, (2) defining the purpose of the evaluation, (3) developing a methodology for evaluation, (4) outlining indicators of success, and (5) selecting a theory or model. To determine the impact of the Conference on the practice of federal, state, and local MCH professionals, the Conference Planning Committee implemented a structured, prospective evaluation. The Committee chose to focus on elements 1–4, with an emphasis on the following indicators of success:

This article provides evaluation results summarizing the subsequent impacts of the Conference on attendee professional networking interactions and application of new knowledge and skills attained during the Conference, through a 6 month post-Conference assessment.

Assessments were administered at two time points. The first assessment was administered at the time of online Conference registration (September–December 2012). Data from this assessment represented all fully registered and paid attendees, and documented professional role, organizational affiliation, and expectations for the Conference. The follow-up assessment was administered 6 months after the Conference (June–July 2013). Questions on this assessment measured the impact and use of the Conference content and initiation of new networking interactions. Both assessments were administered online and included closed and open-ended questions. No incentive was offered for completion of any assessment. The 6 month post-Conference follow-up assessment is the focus of this report, with supporting information from the registration data. The assessments were considered program evaluation, categorized as non-research, and exempted from human subjects review by the CDC.

Two variables were used in analysis from the registration data: the primary professional role and organizational affiliation of Conference attendees. The two registration variables were also used to determine whether there were differences in the distribution of professional roles and organizational affiliations between Conference registrants and 6 month post-Conference assessment respondents. An alpha value of <0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance.

Variables used in the analysis of the 6 month post-Conference assessment, focused on the following five impact areas. Open and closed-ended questions pertaining to these variables are shown in Table 1.

Data from each of the Conference evaluation files were imported into Microsoft Excel. The two post-Conference evaluations were linked by a unique identifier, created for each respondent based on IP address. All identifiable information was removed from the file prior to analysis. The 6 month evaluation file and registration file were then merged using STATA v11. Linking registration information allowed the researchers to describe the five impact areas by attendee demographic characteristics. Quantitative data were cleaned and descriptive analyses developed using STATA v13 and SAS 9.3. Open-ended questions were reviewed to identify common themes and specific impact examples related to quantitative findings.

Online registration was completed by 650 individuals, 197 (30 %) of whom responded to the 6 month post-Conference assessment and were linked by IP address. The distribution of respondents did not significantly differ between registration and 6 month post-Conference assessments by organizational affiliation, as shown in Table 2. Additionally, the distribution of respondents by professional role did not significantly differ between assessments; although, we observed an increase in percentage of those self-reporting as epidemiologists at the 6 month follow-up (from 27 to 37 %), and a decrease in administrators/managers (31–25 %).

Through networking, and the sharing and application of new knowledge, attendees of the 2012 Conference achieved potentially far-reaching methodological, programmatic, and policy-related impacts. The Conference served as a platform for networking, with more than half of respondents following up on a networking interaction. The impacts of networking interactions included promoting capacity building through internships and jobs, and increasing sustainability within organizations through work groups and strategic decision-making. Almost all respondents shared new knowledge from the Conference with colleagues and partners, including both technical program and epidemiological knowledge. Continued attendee sharing of knowledge and skills has the potential to increase and broaden the impact of the Conference. Additionally, respondents went beyond sharing new knowledge to applying new knowledge and skills gained at the Conference. Approximately three-quarters of respondents applied epidemiological, program and policy, and translation knowledge from the Conference further improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their work.

Many conference evaluations measure immediate post-conference indicators of satisfaction, conference quality, and intention to act on learned knowledge [4–6]. The current evaluation is distinct in that the Conference Evaluation Committee evaluated the impact of the Conference following an extended time period post-Conference [7, 8]. Responses to the areas of impact in the six-month follow-up assessment varied by organizational affiliation, with community-based organizations, non-governmental organizations, and local health department staff indicating lower percentages applying new epidemiologic knowledge and translating data into public health action. A guiding principle of the Conference is to have an equally positive impact on all attendees, regardless of professional role or organizational affiliation. To ensure equitable impact, Travers et al. [9] recommend implementing Community-Based Participatory Research workshops and/or sessions highlighting rigorous and higher quality science to better engage attendees at the local and community levels. Further, to support a cohesive, consistent, and broad impact, Wiessner et al. [10] recommend selecting a conference-specific theory, ‘New Learning,’ as part of conference planning and evaluation. In order to engage attendees in all organizational levels at this Conference and better integrate methods and practice, a new policy and program track was planned to complement the traditional epidemiology track. In response, the majority of attendees indicated they apply MCH program and policy skills, methods, or practices learned at the Conference in their work; reinforcing the value of adding the program and policy track to the Conference. Together with the epidemiology track, attendees received information that fully engaged them in scientific, developmental, and policy discussions providing them with a more well-rounded experience.

The evaluation of the 2012 co-hosted 18th MCH Epidemiology and 22nd CityMatCH MCH Urban Leadership Conference provides a baseline methodology for future Conference evaluations. The five impact areas will be monitored. Variations in impacts according to professional roles and organizational affiliations suggest potential opportunities for improvement, and are under consideration by the Conference Planning Committee. Conducting focus groups within professional role type and organizational affiliation may help to identify specific strategies for increasing impact among those groups with a lower prevalence of interaction follow-up and knowledge application.

Limitations of the evaluation include an inability to examine variation in impact by demographic differences of respondents, such as age or length of career in public health, which may have helped to identify focused opportunities for Conference improvement. These data are self-reported, which may affect findings. Respondents who had a positive experience at the Conference may be more inclined to share impact activities than those whose experiences were less positive. Therefore, response bias may have affected evaluation results. While a 30 % response rate at 6 months post-Conference is comparable or better than other published conference evaluations have documented, there is still opportunity to increase response rates [2, 9]. These are areas to address in future evaluations. Although the authors recognize these limitations, they also acknowledge that the distribution of professionals who responded was similar at registration and in the 6 month post-Conference follow-up.

This evaluation provides evidence that conferences can create expanded information sharing and networking, application of new knowledge, and the translation of data to propel public health action. When the Conference impacts documented in this evaluation are considered together, the Conference positively influenced the practice of MCH at the local, state, and federal levels, as well as across professional roles; creating potential for downstream impact on organizational and workforce capacity leading to changes in implementation of programs and policies in the field of MCH. The subsequent longer-term outcome of these impacts is improved health among women, infants, and children.