1 / 16

Purpose of Network Evaluation

Purpose of Network Evaluation. Increase understanding of the relationship between the network design, objectives and functions and the outcomes achieved Provide data to examine trends, identify strengths and weaknesses and assist in leadership decisions. Standing HPTN committees.

tallis
Download Presentation

Purpose of Network Evaluation

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. Purpose of Network Evaluation • Increase understanding of the relationship between the network design, objectives and functions and the outcomes achieved • Provide data to examine trends, identify strengths and weaknesses and assist in leadership decisions

  2. Standing HPTN committees Ongoing, internal peer review • Protocol Review Committee • Study Monitoring Committee • Manuscript Review Committee

  3. Network Evaluation Approach in 2000 • Qualitative rather than quantitative Why? • Breadth of science • Initial focus on infrastructure development • Comprehensive evaluation • Site and protocol performance • Working group functioning • Central resources: CL, CORE, SDMC • Standing committees

  4. 2001 Evaluation Report • Survey results • Science working groups • Central resources • Standing committees • Quantitative data • Protocol implementation • Site performance

  5. HPTN Evaluation-How did we measure up?

  6. Protocols – Development and Progress • Slow overall progress – complex reasons • The large number of contributors (NIAID, FDA, CABS) that are an intrinsic part of a network has a direct relationship to protocol progress. • Many steps in review process – most seem to be unavoidable

  7. Protocols – Development and Progress - Suggested Corrective Measures • Monitor protocol progress and take corrective action when needed to move slow developers along. • Shorten review process whenever possible; clear communication of the need for each review step; combine steps whenever possible. • Define realistic expectations for fielding a protocol.

  8. CWG – Survey Comments • Concern that CWG was not properly integrated into the HPTN research agenda • CWG/Network leadership not proactive enough in integrating the community into network activities • CWG should develop a clearer mission for the group and a master plan for achieving mission goals • Need clear definition of the roles of the CWG and CORE community program staff

  9. Central Laboratory– Survey Comments • CL contributions to protocols were applauded • Site laboratory training – Good quality, more quantity • More and earlier involvement • More site visits by CL • Work on timing of training to coincide more closely with study initiation.

  10. CORE – Survey Comments • Protocol meetings and trainings are well managed • Receptive staff members • More involvement by CORE staff • More site visits • Closer monitoring • More frequent and focused trainings • More vocal involvement in protocol development

  11. CORE – Survey Comments (cont.) • More scientific/technical training for CORE staff • More technical information on the web site and in the newsletter • Better definition of the roles of the CORE’s community program and the CWG

  12. SDMC – Survey Comments • “Knowledgeable,” “Professional” • Accurate and prompt • More flexibility in approach to protocol development • Increase number of site and training visits to HPTUs • Increase interface with site staff in dealing with data management issues

  13. Standing Committees – Survey Comments SMC • General satisfaction with decisions • Earlier involvement in protocols during implementation and site visits PRC • Reviews were timely, thorough and helpful • Concern that expertise of some reviewers may not be adequate, suggest use of additional outside reviewers

  14. Standing Committees – Survey Comments (cont.) MRC • Improve response time to authors • Reviews need to be helpful, provide guidance for improvement • Provide written comments with review decision

  15. Prevention Leadership Group – Survey Comments • Conflict resolution is handled well by the PLG • Good decisions on making the best use of available resources • Clarify and communicate the role of PLG to the Network • Need to focus on tough issues and make “tough” decisions

  16. Summary and Conclusion Key Evaluation Results to Consider • Increase communications to entire network • Clarify the review process from concept to study initiation • Clarify leadership roles and activities • Increase network partner involvement with HPTUs • More visits by CORE, SDMC and CL to improve HPTU performance • Increased focus on ethics and community issues in regard to conducting international research

More Related