Participatory research and evaluation: from best practices for all states to achievable practices within each state in the context of the Master Settlement Agreement.
Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) already assisted state tobacco control initiatives, many state health departments turned to CDC for guidance on how to use Master Settlement Agreement monies. This article describes how CDC funded participatory research to establish local evidence and provided technical assistance for participatory program evaluation. The article (a) presents a telephone interview study of principal investigators (PIs) to determine how CDC could best facilitate participatory research and (b) identifies factors CDC considered to devise evaluation technical assistance that reflected local context. The interview study identified 8 areas where PIs needed CDC's support to undertake participatory research: continuity, timeliness, flexibility, clear and explicit expectations, appropriate and instructive accountability, creation of a vision for participatory research, tailored technical assistance, and enhancement of partner collaboration and support. These findings are being used to inform CDC's research funding. Meanwhile, user-driven technical assistance for participatory evaluation is being accessed by many states.
Mercer
Shawna L
SL
Office of Science and Extramural Research, Public Health Practice Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
MacDonald
Goldie
G
Green
Lawrence W
LW
D019985:Benchmarking; D002487:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D012106:Research; D012926:Social Control, Formal; D013219:State Government; D019460:Tobacco Industry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States