Lessons Learned in Evaluating the Infrastructure of a Centre for Translational Research (CTR)

This paper shares lessons learned while evaluating the implementation of a Clinical and Translational Research Center (CTR). To meet its overarching goals the CTR consists of numerous research support units (e.g., biostats, community engagement, professional development, etc.) that are intended to work together collaboratively. It is then argued that an evaluation approach grounded in system thinking was the best fit to evaluate this key CTR design feature. The rationale for selecting Systems Evaluation Theory (SET) as the evaluation framework best suited to evaluate the CTR infrastructure is then presented. The application of SET and the lessons learned are then shared. The paper concludes that there are many similarly structured programs worldwide to which the lessons learned can be applied and upfront investments in using a system approach are rewarded by providing meaningful and useful evaluation recommendations for system change.

The power of the context map: Designing realistic outcome evaluation strategies and other unanticipated benefits

Developing a feasible evaluation plan is challenging when multiple activities, often sponsored by multiple agencies, work together toward a common goal. Often, resources are limited and not every agency's interest can be represented in the final evaluation plan. The article illustrates how the Antecedent Target Measurement (ATM) approach to logic modeling was adapted to meet this challenge. The key adaptation is the context map generated in the first step of the ATM approach. The context map makes visually explicit many of the underlying conditions contributing to a problem as possible. The article also shares how a prioritization matrix can assist the evaluator in filtering through the context map to prioritize the outcomes to be included in the final evaluation plan as well as creating realistic outcomes. This transparent prioritization process can be especially helpful in managing evaluation expectations of multiple agencies with competing interests. Additional strategic planning benefits of the context map include pinpointing redundancies caused by overlapping collaborative efforts, identifying gaps in coverage, and assisting the coordination of multiple stakeholders.