This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mercer, S. L. Articles by Green, L. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mercer, S. L. Articles by Green, L. W. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Participatory Research and Evaluation: From Best Practices for All States to Achievable Practices within Each State in the Context of the Master Settlement Agreement

Office of Science and Extramural Research, Public Health Practice Program Office, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

Goldie MacDonald, PhD

Steps Program Office, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

Lawrence W. Green, DrPH

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) already assisted state tobacco control initiatives, many state health departments turned to CDC for guid-ance on how to use Master Settlement Agreement mon-ies. This article describes how CDC funded participa-tory research to establish local evidence and provided technical assistance for participatory program evalua-tion. The article (a) presents a telephone interview study of principal investigators (PIs) to determine how CDC could best facilitate participatory research and (b) identifies factors CDC considered to devise evaluation technical assistance that reflected local context. The interview study identified 8 areas where PIs needed CDC’s support to undertake participatory research: con-tinuity, timeliness, flexibility, clear and explicit expec-tations, appropriate and instructive accountability, creation of a vision for participatory research, tailored technical assistance, and enhancement of partner col-laboration and support. These findings are being used to inform CDC’s research funding. Meanwhile, userdriven technical assistance for participatory evaluation is being accessed by many states.

Key Words: research to practice • research translation • tobacco control • tobacco prevention • partic-patory research • community-based partici-atory reesearch • participatory action re-search • evaluation • participatory evalua-ion • program evaluation • research funding • smoking cessation • ecological models

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. J. Osborn, D. L. Thombs, and R. S. Olds Reconceptualizing Research on Undergraduate Alcohol Use: The Need for Student Engagement Eval Health Prof, June 1, 2007; 30(2): 118 - 137. [Abstract] [PDF]