Evidence-based interventions are considered as the product of evidence-based practice where evidences from reputable journals and institutions are used to create new policies and interventional programs. Since the process of transforming innovative knowledge into practice remains challenging, the processes involved in the transformation of studies to practice and guideline are still new. Thus, there is limited understanding and information about the effectivity, reliability, and validity of various frameworks, methods, and approaches (Dogherty, et al., 2013).
One of the benefits of utilizing evidenced-based practice especially in health care is its big contribution to the improvement of patient satisfaction and outcomes. Since the association of evidence-based interventions and patient satisfaction and outcome is crucial when it comes to the evaluation and assessment of the effectivity of the intervention, it is important to consider a properly structured evaluation process (Houser & Oman, 2011).
The crucial step in every intervention, program, or activity is the process of evaluation. The process of evaluation usually involves four phases namely (1) preparation; (2) execution; (3) completion; and (4) dissemination and reporting. It is important to utilize a structured evaluation process to properly make conclusions and recommendations based on the finding of the evaluation process. During planning, it is important to consider not only the feasibility of the evaluation process but also the stakeholders that will take part in the process. Stakeholders can include organizations or professionals who are directly involved in the interventional programs and activities. Proper identification of the stakeholders help increase the credibility of the evaluation process. One of the important considerations when including stakeholders during the planning phase is the need to have an open mind especially in embracing the diversity of cultures. Next, the phase of implementation involves assessment and evaluation of the success of the recruitment and retention of the participants of the interventional program. It is important to evaluate during interventional programs because it can help identify errors and make corrections. Next, completion of the program may involve evaluation of the outcomes for the determination of the program’s efficiency and sustainability. Another advantage of program evaluation is its ability to be able to assess and evaluate the association of outcome and the program. Lastly, the evaluation of the dissemination and reporting of the results of interventional programs allows assessment whether proper guidelines were followed. It is also important to take note of the disclosure and assessment plans of the program during the evaluation process (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2011).
Following a set of steps for the evaluation process greatly contribute to the success of an interventional program because it allows close assessment and systematic approach. Since the association of the interventional program and its impact is important, the structured evaluation process is the best evaluation approach because it is easier to determine whether the outcome observed can be linked or associated to the interventional program. External factors or confounding variables which can cause false association between the main concepts to be evaluated can also be detected and corrected early when using a structured evaluation process. Moreover, the preparation of a set of steps before the actual evaluation process minimizes the bias and errors that may exist. Additionally, the individual differences and situations may also be reduced when utilizing a structured evaluation approach (Patton, 1990).
In totality, the use of structures evaluation process is beneficial in the success of interventional programs because it provides details comments and information about the program. Thus, revision and recommendations for the improvement of the program will be easier since all of the possible errors and concerns have already been properly identified and detailed.
References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2011). Evaluation Phases and Processes. Principles of Community Engagement-Second Edition. Retrieved from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/communityengagement/pce_program_phases.html [Accessed on 14 Mar 2016].
Dogherty, E.J., Harrison, M.B., Graham, I.D., Vandyk, A.D., and Keeping-Burke, L. (2013). Turning Knowledge Into Action at the Point-of-Care: The Collective Experience of Nurses Facilitating the Implementation of Evidence-Based Practice. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nursing 10(3): 129-139.
Houser, J. and Oman, K.S. (2011). Evidence-Based Practice: An Implementation Guide for Healthcare Organizations. Sadbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
