Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #107979

Carolyn E. Crump, PhD, Department of Health Behavior & Health Education, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, CB#7506, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7506, 919-966-5598, ccrump@email.unc.edu and Robert J. Letourneau, MPH, Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, CB#7506, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7506.

Purpose: This presentation describes a multi-year evaluation of the Indian Health Service (IHS) Injury Prevention (IP) Program.

Methods: Methods grounded in empowerment evaluation resulted in a Program Stage of Development Assessment methodology to consistently assess and summarize/interpret, at site visit and follow-up, each IHS Area's stage of development across 12 program components (organized in three Tiers) at a basic, intermediate, or comprehensive level.

Results: Tier I components were rated highest at both site visit and follow-up. Improvements in four evaluation components between site visit and follow-up were identified. Overall, three Areas (25%) were identified as most comprehensive, five (42%) as intermediate, and four (33%) as basic. Correlations of death rate due to unintentional injury (i.e., “need”) for three time periods between 1992-1998 were conducted with the evaluation ratings for the 12 Areas. Stronger programs exist in Areas with greater “need” as indicated by the moderate to high correlations (r=.44-.73). The relationship was stronger at follow-up (r=.52-.73) versus site visit (r=.44-.64). Tier I components had higher correlations with “need” at site visit (r=.61-.76) versus correlations for Tier II (r=.43-.54) and III (r=.15-.39). Correlations between Tier II components and “need” increased between site visit (r=.43-.54) and follow-up (r=.58-.79).

Conclusions: The strongest IHS Area IP programs exist where the need is greatest. Improvements among the strongest programs can be made by focusing on Tier II and III components. For at least three programs, improvements are required to appropriately address injury mortality. The evaluation has facilitated improvements in multiple components with additional improvements expected.

Learning Objectives: