cross-site evaluation update latino etac. goal of cross-site evaluation to facilitate and conduct...
DESCRIPTION
Evaluation Components HIV testing data Intervention exposure Participant survey Medical data abstraction Costing Local evaluation Key informant interviews Participant interviews Qualitative QuantitativeTRANSCRIPT
Cross-site Evaluation Update
Latino ETAC
Goal of Cross-site Evaluation
• To facilitate and conduct a rigorous evaluation of innovative and effective service delivery interventions for Latino/as living with HIV across demonstration sites.
Evaluation Components
HIV testing data
Intervention exposure
Participant survey
Medical data
abstractionCosting
Local evaluation
Key informant interviews
Participant interviews
Qualitative
Quantitative
Cross-Site Qualitative Evaluation
Andrés Maiorana Sophia Zamudio-Haas
Objectives• To describe the interventions and the barriers
and facilitators that affect their implementation
• To identify best practices regarding community engagement, testing, linkage, and retention in care
• To better understand the experiences of patients related to testing, linkage, and engagement in care
Evaluation Components
HIV testing data
Intervention exposure
Participant survey
Medical data
abstractionCosting
Local evaluation
Key informant interviews
Participant interviews
Qualitative
Quantitative
Interview Elements
Key Informant Interviews Client/ Patient Interviews
Number of Interviews
6 per siteTotal N= 120
6 per siteTotal N= 120
Time points Years 2 and 4 Years 2 and 4
Anticipated Length
45- 60 minutes 45- 60 minutes
Mode Face-to-face or telephone;Audio recorded
Face-to-face; Audio Recorded
Domains Perceptions and experiences of implementation staff, intervention barriers and facilitators, participant responses to linkage and engagement efforts, lessons learned
Intervention experiences, perceptions of identity as relate to care seeking behavior, perceptions of living with HIV and experiences with medical care
Cross-Site Quantitative Evaluation
Starley Shade
Objectives
• To assess the effect of demonstration projects on:– Engagement in HIV care continuum, and– Patient health outcomes.
• To assess how pre-disposing factors, enabling factors and need mediate or moderate the effectiveness of demonstration projects– Identification of factors guided by Transnational
Framework specific to Latino/a experiences in the US
Objectives
• To assess the cost, cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness of demonstration projects
Evaluation Components
HIV testing data
Intervention exposure
Participant survey
Medical data
abstractionCosting
Local evaluation
Key informant interviews
Participant interviews
Qualitative
Quantitative
Participant Survey
• Participant survey in production– Available in English and Spanish
• Version 2 available– Please upload and implement
• Version 3 will be produced in the coming weeks– Please provide any feedback on errors identified
by December 31, 2014
Evaluation Components
HIV testing data
Intervention exposure
Participant survey
Medical data
abstractionCosting
Local evaluation
Key informant interviews
Participant interviews
Qualitative
Quantitative
Medical Data Abstraction
• Specifications produced according to Ryan White Services Report (RSR) for 2014– Approved by HRSA
• Data for patients enrolled during the first three months (3) of intervention implementation will be required five (5) months after initiation of the intervention– (e.g. If your intervention started in November 1, 2014, we
would expect information for participants enrolled through January 31, 2015 to be submitted by March 31, 2014)
• ETAC will conduct a webinar to provide instructions for submission of data (January 2015)
Evaluation Components
HIV testing data
Intervention exposure
Participant survey
Medical data
abstractionCosting
Local evaluation
Key informant interviews
Participant interviews
Qualitative
Quantitative
Costing
• ETAC will work with demonstration sites to report the annual cost of planning and implementation of demonstration site interventions.
• Costing categories include:– Personnel– Recurring costs– Capital investment (one-time costs)– Infrastructure (space)
Costing
• Demonstration sites will be asked to report on costs by:– Period (pre-implementation vs. post-implementation)– Activity (community engagement, testing, patient
navigation, case management)– Intervention target (identification, linkage, retention,
etc.)– Source of resources (HRSA SPNS grant vs. “in-
kind” costs)
Costing
• Costs associated with local and cross-site evaluation will be represented separately and are not included in the cost of demonstration site intervention implementation.
Costing
• Demonstration sites should identify one programmatic person (preferable one responsible for the budget) and one financial person to participate in costing activity
• ETAC will conduct an webinar in January 2015 to introduce costing activity to demonstration sites
• After webinar, ETAC will contact sites to set up time to discuss costing activity with each site
Evaluation Components
HIV testing data
Intervention exposure
Participant survey
Medical data
abstractionCosting
Local evaluation
Key informant interviews
Participant interviews
Qualitative
Quantitative
HIV Testing
• Aggregate data– Number tested– Number tested HIV-positive
• Number enrolled– Number of new HIV diagnoses
• Number enrolled
Evaluation Components
HIV testing data
Intervention exposure
Participant survey
Medical data abstraction
Costing
Local evaluation
Key informant interviews
Participant interviews
Qualitative
Quantitative
Intervention Exposure
• Routinely collected data on units of service– Community engagement– Outreach– HIV testing– Patient navigation– Case management
Intervention Exposure
• Demonstration sites will be responsible for uploading data for eligible participants every month to secure web portal.– Demonstration sites will create and use their own
tools for data collection– Data must be submitted in a standardized format
Intervention Exposure
• Data elements– Date– Participant ID– Intervention provider
• Outreach worker, promotoras, patient navigator, case manager, etc.
– Provider type• Peer, non-clinical provider, clinical provider
Intervention Exposure
• Data elements (continued)– Intervention Activity
• Social network engagement, ARTIS session, escort to medical visit, etc.
– Intervention target• Stigma reduction, identification, linkage, retention, etc.
– Minutes
Timeline
• Intervention Implementation– Ongoing
• Local Evaluation– Ongoing
• Cross-site Qualitative Evaluation– Start data collection in the Spring/Summer
• Giving sites to some time to recruit clients/patients and implement linkage to care interventions
• If possible, coordinate with site visits
Timeline
• Cross-Site Quantitative Evaluation– Participant Surveys
• Ongoing– Medical Chart Abstraction
• January 2015 - Webinar to introduce specifications• March 2015 - Webinar to describe how to upload data• April 2015 - Launch
– Costing• January 2015 - Webinar, calls with sites
– Intervention Exposure• January 2015 - Define specifications• February 2015 - Webinar to describe how to upload data• March 2015 - Launch
Thank You
Questions?