1 / 45

Building a Logic Model to Identify and Eliminate Tobacco-related Disparities: A Planning Tool

Building a Logic Model to Identify and Eliminate Tobacco-related Disparities: A Planning Tool. Namita S. Joshi Sharon Kohout Galen Louis. Objectives. To explain the utility of logic model development in program planning. To describe a process for producing a logic model.

sarai
Download Presentation

Building a Logic Model to Identify and Eliminate Tobacco-related Disparities: A Planning Tool

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building a Logic Model to Identify and Eliminate Tobacco-related Disparities: A Planning Tool Namita S. Joshi Sharon Kohout Galen Louis

  2. Objectives • To explain the utility of logic model development in program planning. • To describe a process for producing a logic model. • To evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an existing logic model to identify and eliminate tobacco-related disparities.

  3. (matrix) National Tobacco Control Program

  4. Rationale for Disparities Pilot Project • Lack of science and understanding around the concepts of identifying and eliminating disparities • Healthy People 2010 focus on disparities • Need for tools and proven strategies • Confusion between“disparities” and “diversity”

  5. Diversity • Promotes representation and involvement • Requires the inclusion of representatives from impacted populations in the State at all levels of decision-making regarding tobacco-related health issues

  6. What are Tobacco-Related Disparities? • Gaps, trends, and other inequalities related to tobacco use that adversely affect specific population groups • tobacco use prevalence • exposure to secondhand smoke • quit rates • relapse rates • burden of tobacco-related disease • access to prevention and cessation services • exposure to tobacco industry targeting • opportunities for building capacity andinfrastructure

  7. gender age ethnicity/race education income disability geographic location sexual orientation religion occupation mental illness institutionalization Specific population groups may be characterized by:

  8. Arkansas Idaho Indiana Iowa Maine Michigan Minnesota Nebraska North Carolina Oregon Utah Washington Wisconsin Virgin Islands Disparities Pilot Project Grantees

  9. Disparities Pilot Project Mission To enable each grantee to build its capacity for the identification and elimination of tobacco-related disparities by engaging a diverse and inclusive workgroup in a strategic planning process The resulting strategic plan will provide a framework for future programs, interventions, surveillance, and evaluation associated with tobacco-related disparities.

  10. Disparities Pilot Project • Each of the grantees will: • convene a diverse and inclusive workgroup; • develop a strategic plan for the purpose of identifying and eliminating tobacco-related disparities in specific populations; • incorporate the resulting recommendations into the annual action plan; • evaluate the effectiveness of the strategic planning process.

  11. Steps in the Strategic Planning Process I. Get Organized: Structure and Formation of the Strategic Planning Workgroup II. Take Stock: Assess the Data III. Set Direction: Develop the Strategic Plan IV. Adopt and Refine the Plan V. Prepare for Action

  12. “Our dilemma is that we hate change and love it at the same time, what we really want is for things to stay the same but get better.” —Sydney Harris

  13. OSH Strategic Planning

  14. Example Logic Model

  15. What is a Logic Model? • Presentation of links in a chain of reasoning • Disciplined way of mapping a program • Platform for discussion • Multi-purpose tool • Means not an end

  16. Logic Models Help To … • Design and improve programs • Building a common understanding of the program and use of resources • Share ideas and identify assumptions • Facilitate team building and communication • Communicate the role of the program in the organization From McLaughlin, JA and Jordan, GB. Logic Models: A tool for Telling Your Program’s Performance Story, July 1998

  17. What is a Theory of Change? • An understanding of how an initiative works • A knowledge of the LINKS between activities and outcomes

  18. Theory of Change • Provides connection to science base for tobacco use prevention and control • Informs planning and implementation • Directs measurement and data collection

  19. Criteria for a Theory of Change • It should be plausible. • It should be doable. • It should be testable.

  20. INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES Direct products of activities Benefits for participants during and after program activities What we do with program resources to fulfill mission Program Resources The Components of a Logic Model

  21. Considerations • Logic models are a participatory exercise • Intended to be a snapshot of your program • No “one” right way to construct your logic model • Strive for simplicity • Do not get discouraged

  22. Criteria for a Good Logic Model • Logical links • Includes influential forces • Visually engaging • Audience specific • Useful • Appropriate detail

  23. “And this is our new logic model!”

  24. Building the Logic Model…

  25. Critical Success Factors • Common language • Sufficient data (quantitative and qualitative)/ new methods of collecting data • Diversity and inclusivity/community participation • Strategic partnerships • Fiscal resources • Building capacity and infrastructure • Politically supportive environment

  26. Barriers • Lack of understanding of the difference between diversity and disparity • Lack of coordinated technical assistance and training • Lack of consensus and consistency on indicators of disparity • Community vs. strata vs. group • Economies of scale • Lack of adequate evidence base

  27. Guiding Principles • Diversity • Inclusivity • Participatory Process • Building Trust • Community Competence • Capacity and Infrastructure Development

  28. Six Theme Areas • Common Language • Funding • Partnerships • Data   • Capacity and Infrastructure • Politics

  29. Where do we go from here?

  30. The Logic Model

  31. Draft

  32. Draft

  33. Draft

  34. Draft

  35. Draft

  36. Draft

  37. Draft

  38. Priority Objectives 1. Achieve consensus on significant terms and definitions regarding tobacco-related disparities. 2. Increase collaboration with existing national partners and new partners representative of populations at risk for tobacco-related disparities. 3. Increase the availability of data (quantitative and qualitative) that inform work on tobacco-related disparities.

  39. Priority Objectives 4. Increase the capacity and infrastructure of states, territories, tribal support centers, national networks and specific populations to address tobacco-related disparities. 5. Increase the level of community competency and capacity in specific population groups to ensure implementation of evidence-based interventions for 1) preventing initiation among youth and young adults; 2) quitting among adults and youth; and 3) reducing exposure to secondhand smoke.

  40. A SIMPLE LOGIC MODEL http://ctb.lsi.ukans.edu

  41. P L A N D E V E L O P E D Multi-disciplinary group of stakeholders is convened. D I V E R S I T Y W O R K G R O U P I. DATA SYSTEMS A more sensitive data collection system is created Disparities among population are eliminated. A Comprehensive approach for each disparate population is implemented. Goals for culturally appropriate interventions are developed. II. CULTURAL COMPETENCY Capacity is developed at the Provider - Decision-maker Level Reduced tobacco-related morbidity and mortality for all Idaho residents. Data are collected and analyzed III. FUNDING & RESOURCES A new set of “Inputs” are created. Disparate populations are identified IV. COMMUNITY INFRASTRCTRE Capacity developed within each disparate population. Gaps in knowledge are identified V. POLICY ADVOCACY Evaluation is conducted on all phases of this process. Identify and Eliminate Disparities IDAHO LOGIC MODEL InputsActivitiesOutputsOutcomes (Elimination) (Identification) Short-termIntermediateLong-term

  42. Strengths • Participatory approach • Inclusiveness • Representation • Parity • Diversity of workgroup • Open communication • Improved ability to assess needs and identify goals and strategies • Reflects shared understanding • Greater ownership • Run through different scenarios

  43. Lessons Learned • Phobia of logic models • Time consuming to create • Format vs. content • Context changes depending on user • Logic model is not law • Relationships sometimes oversimplified • Not an end but a beginning • Difficult to adequately capture context

  44. “Planning is everything; the plan is nothing.” —Dwight D. Eisenhower

  45. Contact Information Namita S. Joshi, MPA (NJoshi@cdc.gov) Sharon Kohout, MA (SKohout@cdc.gov) Office on Smoking and Health, CDC Galen Louis, PhD (louisg@idhw.state.id.us) Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Bureau of Health Promotion

More Related