Stakeholders for an evaluation are the people or agencies who are directly involved in implementing an evaluation or who are (or should be) invested in the evaluation findings. For an STD program evaluation related to partner services, for example, stakeholders may include disease intervention specialists (DIS) staff and supervisors, HIV program counterparts, and representatives from the top clinical agencies that work with the DIS directly, among others. Engagement of them should entail genuine consultation through various available means, such as meetings, e-mails, conference calls, webinars, and so on. Program staff may wish to formally constitute an advisory group of stakeholders for an evaluation, or they may opt to engage stakeholders in a more informal, ad hoc way. Regardless of the approach to engagement, stakeholder engagement is often time consuming.
The core purpose of engaging stakeholders is to ensure the use of an evaluation. Although defined as the first step within the framework, engagement can benefit all other steps. Stakeholders can help define a program, prioritize evaluation questions and approaches, interpret findings, and map out the best ways to disseminate the findings. Stakeholders should also include those with some influence to make changes as a result of an evaluation. They not only guide the evaluation, offering technical and other advice, but they also should be positioned to advocate for it and its results, by virtue of their engagement. Token or minimalist engagement approaches (e.g., meeting and communicating rarely; not truly taking stakeholder feedback into account) can undermine both of these goals. Engaging the same set of individuals or organizations across evaluations also could mute the benefits of stakeholder engagement; stakeholders should be reviewed and identified for each evaluation effort. Different sets of people may be invested in or impacted by an evaluation of an STD partner services program than an evaluation of an STD surveillance system, for example.
Describe the Program
Clear program descriptions provide clear roadmaps for evaluation. When the intended outputs, outcomes, contextual influences, and relationships underlying a program or intervention are clarified, it is much easier to see what could be measured or documented and where additional study might most be needed. Logic models, theories of change, and systems diagrams are all tools for describing a program in ways that expose its intended logic. The choice of tool should depend on the preferences and needs of its users. Descriptions also can be developed at different levels. For example, an STD program may have a description for its entire program and could develop nested descriptions that go into greater detail about each component, such as its partner service work or policy strategies. For all their variations, STD programs tend to share short-term outcomes such as increased screening and treatment of STDs and long-term outcomes such as reduced STD prevalence and incidence.
The process of explicitly laying out the logic and context behind a program also can reveal strengths and weaknesses in a program's design, which have direct implications for the potential success of evaluation. Mismatches between program effort and intended outcomes may become apparent, as may important assumptions that might place a program at risk. For example, if an STD program planned to increase chlamydia (CT) screening rates in a city by holding 2 workshops with large groups of providers, the program description might help raise questions about how realistic it is to expect such change with relatively little intervention exposure. Measuring and tracking screening rates citywide as the primary marker of success of that particular intervention would be misguided. Also, are the STD program staff certain that lack of knowledge (as addressed through the planned workshops) is the main reason CT screening rates are low? A program description can prompt these and other kinds of questions that may both strengthen a program and ensure that evaluation effort is well placed.
Focus the Evaluation
Evaluations should be focused so that they are useful and feasible. Like all programs, STD programs are complex, and it is nearly impossible to evaluate all components of them equally well, across the variety of evaluation questions that programs might be interested in—even if resources were unlimited. Therefore, careful choices should be made about how to focus one's evaluation effort. The process of narrowing and defining the focus of an evaluation begins with identifying what part of a program to evaluate. Various considerations (budgetary, political, scientific, etc) come into play in this choice. Common criteria include how pressing and real the information needs are (i.e., whether there are high stakes decisions to make about that component), how many resources are or may be invested in a program component, and how important a program component is to a programs' overall logic of effectiveness. For example, if only 1% of an STD program budget goes toward maintaining its Web site, and the Web site is recognized as contributing relatively little to the program's broader impact on STD screening and treatment, then the program may opt to regularly review routine Web metrics about utilization of the Web site but not to undertake more in-depth evaluation (e.g., survey of users to see what they learned from it). If an STD program were piloting a new approach to reaching providers reporting use of incorrect gonorrhea (GC) treatment, this may be prioritized for evaluation, because of the importance of this activity to the program's primary outcomes and potential for rolling out that approach across all of its local health departments. The rationale for any evaluation should be explicit and strong; stakeholders often can assist significantly in such deliberations.
From this point, the process of focusing an evaluation should continue, toward identifying the specific evaluation questions to answer and the specific kinds of data and evidence that will be used to answer those questions. Brainstorming about what might be important or interesting to know about a program's new approach to GC treatment improvement may generate numerous questions, which could quickly overwhelm the available evaluation resources of a typical STD program and its partners. Final decisions must balance information needs with available resources. This does not mean that a program evaluation should only seek answers to the easiest questions that rely on existing, easily accessible data or information. Rather, the rationale for asking new questions and collecting new data should be well justified. That rationale is often compelling because it is usually where data are fewest that the information needs are most acute.
Sometimes, in the course of describing a program strategy clearly or determining the most pressing information needs about a particular program strategy, staff may determine that formative evaluation or assessment is most needed. For example, staff may determine that before evaluating whether a new approach to improving GC treatment practices works, they need to obtain more information about the target providers and what the barriers to improved GC treatment are, to develop a program model that has a higher chance of success. Further evaluation of that new (presumably improved) program may then follow.
Gather Credible Evidence; Justify Conclusions
Once an evaluation plan is made, the goal is then to gather the evidence. The emphasis in evaluation is on credible evidence. Credible evidence tries to strike a balance between the feasibility of data collection and analysis and the usefulness of that evidence to informing program decisions. Evaluation draws on scientific methods of data collection and data analysis to ensure credibility. Evidence can come in both quantitative and qualitative forms, involving a range of potential data sources and methods. For example, a set of focus groups with DIS staff may serve to more formally identify barriers and potential solutions to improving partner services for MSM with syphilis. This could be complemented by tracking key indicators from partner services data before and after efforts made to reduce those barriers. From a scientific point of view, the lack of a control group of DIS who did not change their approaches or lack of randomization of index patients over time diminishes the ability to determine with certainty whether the program changes were responsible for any changes seen in the key indicators. However, the collective evidence may be plausible and credible enough to inform whether to continue with that approach or try something else.
Much evaluation work revolves around identifying and using key indicators. By definition, strong indicators have high credibility and scientific merit, as well as clear meaning. However, for STD programs situated in health departments, there is little consensus about the best indicators and targets to use to assess their programs. How do they measure the strength of their partnerships with clinical partners? What is an appropriate target for a program's surveillance capacity? In a given epidemiologic context, what makes for adequate treatment indices for partner services programs? Given shifting health care contexts, what benchmarks for STD screening and treatment should be set for different clinical settings? Even in the arena of clinical care, only 4 measures related to STDs have been endorsed by National Quality Forum, and only one, related to CT screening among young women, has been taken up by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as a measure of quality clinical care to date.1 As a result, STD programs must continue to use indicators that make sense to their own context, while collaborating with one another to identify measures that are strongest and have broad application.
Table 4 provides a starting point for thinking about key outputs and outcomes for various kinds of STD interventions, as well as some example indicators for each. The specifics for all are highly dependent on program and epidemiologic context and on the specific program description and focus of an evaluation.
Ensure Use and Share Lessons Learned
In some ways, the measure of success for an evaluation is whether the results were used in a meaningful way. The prior steps should lead toward this. If relevant stakeholders understand the program and the evaluation, if the focus of the evaluation is important, and if the evidence gathered and analysis conducted are credible, then the results have a high chance of being actionable and used to inform the program. Use of results could lead to expansion of a strategy, adjustments to a strategy, or discontinuation of a strategy. For example, a program may opt to conduct a simple cost analysis of their outreach screening work and find that in each of the last 6 months, they used approximately $50,000 in staff time and $10,000 in materials and transportation to identify 7 new cases of syphilis. Given their other budget pressures, they may use these results to discontinue their outreach screening and divert resources toward other strategies, while identifying whether and how to continue outreach work. This would be a laudable evaluation result.
The reason that evaluation results go unused usually ties back to weaknesses in one of the prior steps in evaluation. They also may get shelved because they are disseminated poorly, through modes that key stakeholders do not understand readily (e.g., highly technical, dense reports) or that do not facilitate discussion of what the implications of the results might be (e.g., a one-way presentation that reports results). The frequent absence of cost and other resources needed for an intervention or strategy also is an important barrier to evaluation results being used by other program contexts.
Applying the Framework to Funding Agencies
Sexually transmitted disease programs often receive outside funding and distribute funds to other agencies. The principles described earlier generally apply to funders as well. Funders should view funded agencies as key stakeholders who need to be engaged throughout the development and application of any evaluation requirements attached to funding. Funders' own program description, including the intended outputs and outcomes of the grant or contract, should be clear and realistic. Such descriptions should help set realistic expectations of funded agencies and guard against setting the program and funded partners up for failure. For example, funding a local health department a small amount, while asking them to increase CT screening countywide by 50% within 2 years, could be unrealistic and counterproductive. Similarly, funders also need to be focused about their own evaluation needs and questions. Asking for a great deal of data or evidence without clear rationale for the need for those data also can weaken those funded partnerships. The information obtained from funded agencies must be used with scientific integrity and credibility and clearly used for appropriate evaluation purposes. Not doing so can weaken the collective culture of evaluation and people's attitudes toward evaluation in general.
This article provided a brief primer on program evaluation in the context of STD programs. The aim was not to serve as a how-to for evaluation, but rather to make some of the high-level principles and concepts more accessible to STD program staff. Various resources exist for more in-depth explanations, examples, and tools to use to implement various aspects of evaluation for STD programs.2 It is worth recognizing that some STD program staff and their partners have negative experiences or perceptions about evaluation, including performance measures—experiences that usually can be traced back to some of the pitfalls outlined above. Working to overcome these barriers is essential because evaluation is one of the tools for identifying more effective and efficient ways forward for STD programs.
Evaluation of all STD programs, large and small, is within reach. Having research expertise is not a prerequisite for planning or conducting evaluation. Sexually transmitted disease program staff often have relevant expertise among themselves or within their larger organizational units. Obtaining technical assistance from external evaluators or scientists on evaluation design and analysis can be worthwhile and does not necessarily need to be costly. Although obtaining expertise can be helpful, evaluation is not only for evaluators; rather, it is a function and responsibility that should engage staff from across an STD program.
As the stewards of public resources, local, state, and federal STD programs need to ensure that their resources are being used in the most effective and efficient ways possible. Application of evaluation approaches can help identify programmatic activities that may be of limited value, whether they are old or new strategies. Similarly, evaluation can help establish the evidence base for strategies that may be underresourced, yet have a large potential for effectiveness. Evaluation and quality improvement approaches in particular also facilitate systematic tinkering with program components to make gains in efficiency and effectiveness. Increasingly, STD programs need to see when and how they can track outcomes, in addition to outputs, and identify opportunities to include cost analysis in their evaluations, as part of a broader effort to assess effectiveness and value of different approaches. Optimally, this evidence builds from the ground up, with observations and small evaluations contributing toward an evidence base that all STD program staff can draw from. Large-scale evaluations and formal research and demonstration projects can contribute as well. Collectively, these efforts help broaden the evidence base for STD programs more generally and help us all move more swiftly toward the ultimate goal of decreased STD incidence and disease burden.
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recomm Rep
. 1999; 48: 1–40.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Practical Use of Program Evaluation among Sexually Transmitted Disease Programs. 2014. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/std/program/pupestd.htm
. Accessed November 10, 2014.
4. Fisman DN, Spain CV, Salmon ME, et al. The Philadelphia High-School STD Screening Program: Key insights from dynamic transmission modeling. Sex Transm Dis
. 2008; 35(11 suppl): S61–S65.
5. Osterlund A. Improved partner notification for genital chlamydia can be achieved by centralisation of the duty to a specially trained team. Int J STD AIDS
. 2014; 25: 1009–1012.
6. Udeagu CC, Shah D, Shepard CW, et al. Impact of a New York City Health Department initiative to expand HIV partner services outside STD clinics. Public Health Rep
. 2012; 127: 107–114.
7. Huppert JS, Reed JL, Munafo JK, et al. Improving notification of sexually transmitted infections: A quality improvement project and planned experiment. Pediatrics
. 2012; 130: e415–e422.
8. Introcaso CE, Rogers ME, Abbott SA, et al. Expedited partner therapy in federally qualified health centers—New York City, 2012. Sex Transm Dis
. 2013; 40: 881–885.
9. Hutchinson J, Evans D, Sutcliffe LJ, et al. STIFCompetency: Development and evaluation of a new clinical training and assessment programme in sexual health for primary care health professionals. Int J STD AIDS
. 2012; 23: 589–592.
10. Rukh S, Khurana R, Mickey T, et al. Chlamydia and gonorrhea diagnosis, treatment, personnel cost savings, and service delivery improvements after the implementation of express sexually transmitted disease testing in Maricopa County, Arizona. Sex Transm Dis
. 2014; 41: 74–78.
11. Chesson H, Owusu-Edusei K Jr. Examining the impact of federally-funded syphilis elimination activities in the USA. Soc Sci Med
. 2008; 67: 2059–2062.
12. Rietmeijer CA, Westergaard B, Mickiewicz TA, et al. Evaluation of an online partner notification program. Sex Transm Dis
. 2011; 38: 359–364.
13. Riley W, Lownik B, Halverson P, et al. Developing a taxonomy for the science of improvement in public health. J Public Health Manag Pract
. 2012; 18: 506–514.
1To search for these measures, go to the following Web sites for National Quality Forum and AHRQ and search for CT and for HPV (last accessed March 3, 2015): http://www.qualityforum.org/QPS/QPSTool.aspx and http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/content.aspx?f=rss&id=48812&osrc=12 © Copyright 2016 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association