Conducting An Environmental Scan to Create Evaluation Tools for STD-Related Print Materials

Background: CDC’s Division of STD Prevention (DSTDP) currently has over 6.4 million pieces of health communication materials (fact sheets, brochures, booklets, posters, and CD-ROMS) available to clinicians, students, educators, and the general public for patient education, campaigns, community distribution, and practitioner training. The majority of materials are available both through an online ordering system and are web-based. Some materials (fact sheets) are web-based only. The number of STD-related print materials ordered in 2009 was 788,570. Because of the massive number of materials available and ordered, it is imperative that DSTDP provides clear, consistent, and correct content to our consumers.  To do this, each health communication print material needs to be evaluated against six factors: appearance, content, cultural competence, linguistic competence, reach and reliability.  An environmental scan was conducted to identify current evaluation tools for health communication print materials. An evaluation tool, along with an accompanying checklist and protocol/standards for criteria was developed for use in DSTDP.

Program background:  DSTDP is located in the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. The mission of DSTDP is to help people be safer and healthier by preventing STDs and their complications.

Evaluation Methods and Results: Environmental scanning is the process of gathering, analyzing, and dispensing information for tactical or strategic purposes. The environmental scan found guides, checklists, and actual tools for designing and evaluating print materials in peer-reviewed journals, Healthy People 2010, and in materials from federal agencies and universities’ offices of health communications. However, all the materials had various elements needed that were not contained in one tool. The results were the development of an evaluation tool that focused on appearance, content, cultural competence, linguistic competence, reach and reliability; a checklist that could be used to quickly assess the material before commencing the tool; and a protocol/standard for criteria that will assist in completing the evaluation tool.

Conclusions: Health communications materials must be evaluated against established standards before being made available to consumers. An evaluation tool, along with an accompanying checklist and protocol/standards for criteria was developed for use in DSTDP.

Implications for research and/or practice: The most important implication for practice and research is a potential redesign of current print materials that better fit our consumers’ needs if it is found that the material fails to meet one or more of the six evaluation factors. Other implications could be financial, including the costs of reprinting revised materials. DSTDP materials will continue to be reviewed and/or revised yearly for accuracy and to include any new information. This evaluation tool can be adapted for any topic.