IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v87y2021ics0149718921000288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation plan of the 6for6 research skills program for rural and remote physicians

Author

Listed:
  • Asghari, Shabnam
  • Heeley, Thomas
  • Bethune, Cheri
  • Graham, Wendy
  • MacLellan, Cameron
  • Button, Cathryn
  • Porter, Nicole
  • Parsons, Sandra

Abstract

Overwhelming issues and barriers often prevent rural and remote physicians (RRPs) from pursuing the many socially accountable research questions they encounter on a daily basis. Although research training programs can empower RRPs to rise to these challenges, there is a lack of evidence on how they should be developed and refined. At Memorial University, a faculty development program (FDP) called 6for6 has been helping RRPs surmount their research quagmires and engage in scholarship since 2014. After an initial three-year (2014-17) pilot, we prepared a detailed plan to evaluate the 6for6 research FDP for RRPs and inform future years of delivery. Using a modified Delphi method and participatory action model a group of program team members, stakeholders and evaluation experts developed an evaluation plan including a logic model and an evaluation matrix addressing five key themes. To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation plan for a research-focused FDP targeting RRPs. While this plan was developed specifically for the 6for6 FDP, our approach to its development may be useful to any institution interested in evaluating an FDP with limited resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Asghari, Shabnam & Heeley, Thomas & Bethune, Cheri & Graham, Wendy & MacLellan, Cameron & Button, Cathryn & Porter, Nicole & Parsons, Sandra, 2021. "Evaluation plan of the 6for6 research skills program for rural and remote physicians," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:87:y:2021:i:c:s0149718921000288
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101933
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718921000288
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101933?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lipsey, Mark W. & Pollard, John A., 1989. "Driving toward theory in program evaluation: More models to choose from," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 317-328, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kent, Douglas R. & Donaldson, Stewart I. & Wyrick, Phelan A. & Smith, Peggy J., 2000. "Evaluating criminal justice programs designed to reduce crime by targeting repeat gang offenders," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 115-124, February.
    2. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    3. Anthony Petrosino, 2000. "Mediators and Moderators in the Evaluation of Programs for Children," Evaluation Review, , vol. 24(1), pages 47-72, February.
    4. Geoffrey J. Syme & Brian S. Sadler, 1994. "Evaluation of Public Involvement in Water Resources Planning," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(5), pages 523-542, October.
    5. Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia & Graversen, Ebbe Krogh, 2020. "Developing a conceptual evaluation framework for gender equality interventions in research and innovation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    6. Victoria A. Johnson & Kevin R. Ronan & David M. Johnston & Robin Peace, 2016. "Improving the Impact and Implementation of Disaster Education: Programs for Children Through Theory‐Based Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2120-2135, November.
    7. Carol H. Weiss, 1997. "How Can Theory-Based Evaluation Make Greater Headway?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 21(4), pages 501-524, August.
    8. Nesman, Teresa M. & Batsche, Catherine & Hernandez, Mario, 2007. "Theory-based evaluation of a comprehensive Latino education initiative: An interactive evaluation approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 267-281, August.
    9. Goodier, Sarah & Field, Carren & Goodman, Suki, 2018. "The need for theory evaluation in global citizenship programmes: The case of the GCSA programme," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 7-19.
    10. Gravel, Jason & Bouchard, Martin & Descormiers, Karine & Wong, Jennifer S. & Morselli, Carlo, 2013. "Keeping promises: A systematic review and a new classification of gang control strategies," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 228-242.
    11. Jeremiah, Rohan D. & Quinn, Camille R. & Alexis, Jicinta M., 2018. "Lessons learned: Evaluating the program fidelity of UNWomen Partnership for Peace domestic violence diversion program in the Eastern Caribbean," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-67.
    12. Brousselle, Astrid & Champagne, François, 2011. "Program theory evaluation: Logic analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-78, February.
    13. Sowl, Stephanie & Amrein-Beardsley, Audrey & Collins, Clarin, 2022. "Teaching program evaluation: How blending theory and practice enhance student-evaluator competencies in an education policy graduate program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    14. Nichols, Laura, 2002. "Participatory program planning: including program participants and evaluators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-14, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:87:y:2021:i:c:s0149718921000288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.