The findings and conclusions in these presentations have not been formally disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

Tuesday, May 9, 2006
178

Applying community-based participatory research methods to a STD program in a community-based organization

Ruth Wetta-Hall, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, 1010 N. Kansas, Wichita, KS, USA, Traci Hart, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine- Wichita, 1010 N. Kansas, Wichita, KS, USA, and Gina Berg-Copas, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, University of Kansas Master in Public Health program, 1010 N. Kansas, Witchita, KS, USA.


Background:
The Pregnancy Crisis Center of Wichita, Inc. (PCC) partnered with the Sedgwick County Health Department (SCHD) and the University of Kansas School of Medicine – Wichita (KUSM-W), to implement the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) STD diagnosis and treatment protocols in 2005. Using principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and a logic model approach, the partners developed a process evaluation to track service delivery effectiveness and a research protocol to assess program impact and outcomes.

Objective:
To assess the impact of the CDC STD testing and treatment protocol implemented in a faith-based organization.

Method:
During a six-month period, SCHD, PCC and KUSM-W collaborated to blend community experience with academic knowledge. Key evaluation strategies included: 1) empowering FBAAPRC staff to own the evaluation process, 2) designing, constructing and implementing an evaluation database which collected data directly from the clinical service delivery process, and 3) monthly report generation to track program goals and associate value with complete data collection.

Result:
The database allows more than six hundred fields of data to be collected and maintained in a single source, permits tracking rates, allows data to be queried by variable and has the capability to generate quality control reports. Program staff own and direct the evaluation process.

Conclusion:
Principles of CBPR were an effective model to guide this evaluation partnership. The community organization (PCC) readily captures evaluation data at the point of service, ensuring that program goals and objectives are met, and monitors client outcomes without difficulty.

Implications:
Historically, public health research has been conducted almost exclusively by academic investigators, resulting in mistrust and non-involvement versus collaborative partnerships. Community-based participatory research may enhance public health evaluation.