AEA365 | A Tip-a-Day by and for Evaluators

CAT | Health Evaluation

Hi. We’re Judy Savageau and Kathy Muhr from the University of Massachusetts Medical School’s Center for Health Policy and Research. Within our Research and Evaluation Unit, we work on a number of projects using qualitative and quantitative methods as well as primary and secondary data sources. We’ve come to appreciate that different types of data from different sources need varying levels of data management and quality oversight.

One of our current projects is evaluating a screening program that requires primary care providers to screen children for potential behavioral health conditions. Among a random sample of 4000 children seen for a well child visit during one of two study years, we collected data both from medical records (primary data source: both quantitative and qualitative chart notes) as well as administrative/claims data (secondary data source: solely quantitative). Given the nature of data from the two sources, we implemented different data quality checks and cross-checks between them.

Lessons Learned:

  • Claims data comes from the insurance payer having already gone through its own internal data cleaning and data management processes. However, much of the patient demographic data comes at the time of insurance enrollment and not updated at the time of a clinical visit. Some data elements are often incomplete and not updated even after numerous clinical encounters, especially data such as gender, race, ethnicity and primary language. While a provider might ‘know’ this information when seeing a patient, it’s not necessarily updated in administrative datasets.
  • Many practices don’t necessarily collect demographic data in a uniform manner unless they’re required to report on this data. Primary care providers are well connected to their patient’s demographics in terms of needs for interpreters, cultural health beliefs, and age- or gender-specific anticipatory guidance needs. Unfortunately, medical records data often had nearly as much missing data as did the administrative claims data!
  • Cross-checking data between these two sources was an important step for us to take in this project as we hypothesized that there might be differences in screening children for behavioral health needs. Wanting to assess potential health service disparities was an important factor in this evaluation given the interest in vulnerable populations.
  • While electronic medical records (EMRs) were evident in at least 60% of practices where charts were abstracted, it was no surprise to find that EMRs vary practice to practice. It was clear that projects such as this one might then need to use text-based data within the chart notes to obtain vital information in order to assess potential disparities.

Hot Tip: Although data quality is key, find a balance between budgetary and personnel resources and the time required to cross-check data through multiple sources and/or impute missing data using a variety of techniques.

Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org . aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

No tags

I am Humberto Reynoso-Vallejo, a private consultant on health services research. A few years ago, I was part of an exploratory study of Latino caregivers in the Boston area caring for a family member suffering Alzheimer’s disease. Difficulties facing those families coping with the disease have promoted the rise of support groups for diverse population group. Support groups for racial/ethnic diverse caregivers were scarce, and in the case of Latino caregivers in the Boston area nonexistent. To respond to this need, I tried to develop a support group for Latinos with the assistance of the Alzheimer’s Association. After several unsuccessful attempts, I conducted a focus group with four caregivers to identify barriers to participation. Findings indicated that caregivers faced a number of issues including: lack of transportation; lack of available time to take off from other responsibilities; the absence of linguistically appropriate support groups; caring for other family members dealing with an array of health problems (multiple caregiving); and, other personal and social stressors.

I designed an alternative and pragmatic model support group, which took the form of a radio program. The “radio support group” directly targeted caregiver’s concerns and aimed to:

a) Disseminate culturally relevant information, largely from the point of view of the caregivers themselves, either as guest in the program or when calling into; and,

b) Reduce the sense of isolation that many caregivers feel on a daily basis as a result of their caregiving roles.

I facilitated the radio support group with the participation of caregivers, professionals and service providers. Four programs were aired exploring topics such as memory problems, identifying signs of dementia, caregiver needs, and access to services. After each radio program was aired, I called the 14 participant caregivers to explore their reactions, and found that the majority of them were not able to participate. Since the “live” radio support group was not accomplishing its original purpose of disseminating information and reducing caregivers sense of isolation, I decided to distribute the edited audiotapes of the 4 programs to all caregivers. Overall, caregivers found the information useful and many established contact with others. 

Lessons Learned:

  • This model of intervention, the radio support group, showed that innovation simultaneously with cultural relevant material is promising.
  • Research and evaluation should adapt to the particular needs and social context of Latino caregivers of family members with Alzheimer’s disease.
  • There is a need for more culturally appropriate types of interventions that mobilize caregivers’ own strengths, values, and resources.

Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org . aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

 

 

No tags

Hi, we are Monika Mitra and Lauren Smith from the Disability, Health, and Employment Policy unit in the Center for Health Policy and Research at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.  Our research is focused on health disparities between people with and without disabilities.

Evaluating a Population of People with Disabilities

In collaboration with the Health and Disability Program (HDP) at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), we conducted a health needs assessment of people with disabilities in Massachusetts.  The needs assessment helped us better understand the unmet public health needs and priorities of people with disabilities living in MA.  We learned a tremendous amount in doing this assessment and wanted to share our many lessons learned with the AEA365 readership!

Lessons Learned:

  • 3-Pronged approach

Think about your population and how you can reach people who might be missed by more traditional methodologies:  In order to reach people with disabilities who may not be included in existing health surveys, we used two other approaches to complement data from the MA Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).  They included: an anonymous online survey on the health needs of MA residents with disabilities and interviews with selected members of the MA disability community.

  • Leveraging Partnerships

Think about alternative ways to reach your intended population:  For the online survey, we decided on a snowball sampling method.  This method consists of identifying potential respondents who in turn identify other respondents; it is a particularly useful methodology in populations who are difficult to reach and may generally be excluded from traditional surveys and affect one’s generalizability of findings.  HDP’s Health and Disability Partnership provided a network to spread the survey to people with disabilities, caregivers, advocates, service providers, and friends/family of people with disabilities.

  • Accessibility is Key

Focus on accessibility:  In an effort to increase the accessibility of the survey, Jill Hatcher from DEAF, Inc. developed a captioned vlog (a type of video blog) to inform the Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard of Hearing, and Late-Deafened community about the survey.  In the vlog, she mentioned that anyone could call DEAF, Inc. through videophone if they wanted an English-to-ASL translation of the survey.  Individuals could also respond to the survey via telephone.

Rad Resources:

  • Disability and Health Data System (DHDS)

DHDS is an online tool developed by the CDC providing access to state-level health data about people with disabilities.

  • Health Needs Assessment of People with Disabilities Living in MA, 2013

To access the results of the above-mentioned needs assessment, please contact the Health and Disability Program at MDPH.

  • A Profile of Health Among Massachusetts Residents, 2011

This report published by the MDPH contains information on the health of people with disabilities in Massachusetts.

Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org . aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

 

· ·

Hi, we are Ann Lawthers, Sai Cherala, and Judy Steinberg, UMMS PCMHI Evaluation Team members from the University of Massachusetts Medical School’s Center for Health Policy and Research. Today’s blog title sounds obvious, doesn’t it? Your definition of success influences your findings. Today we talk about stakeholder perspectives on success and how evaluator decisions about what is “success” can change the results of your evaluation.

As part of the Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI), the 45 participating practices submitted clinical data (numerators and denominators only) through a web portal. Measures included HEDIS® look-alikes such as diabetes outcomes and asthma care, as well as measures developed for this initiative, e.g., high risk members with a care plan. Policy makers were interested in whether the PCMH initiative resulted in improved clinical performance, although they also wanted to know “Who are the high- or low-performing practices on the clinical measures after 18 months in the initiative?” The latter question could be about either change or attainment. Practices were more interested in how their activities affected their clinical performance.

To address both perspectives we chose to measure clinical performance in terms of both change and attainment. We then used data from our patient survey, our staff survey, and the Medical Home Implementation Quotient (MHIQ) to find factors associated with both change and attainment.

Lesson Learned: Who are the high performers? “It depends.” High performance defined by high absolute levels of performance disproportionately rewarded practices that began the project with excellent performance. High performance defined by magnitude of change slighted practices that began at the top, as these practices had less room to change. The result? The top five performers defined by each metric were different.

Hot Tip:

  • Do you want to reward transformation? Choose metrics that measure change over the life of your project.
  • Do you want to reward performance? Choose metrics that assess attainment of a benchmark.
  • The results of each metric will include different lists of high performers.

Lesson Learned: The practices wanted to know: “What can we do to make ourselves high-performers?” Our mixed methods approach found leadership and comfort with Health Information Technology predicted attainment, but only low baseline performance predicted change.

Hot Tip: A mixed methods approach provides a rich backdrop for interpreting your findings and providing detail for stakeholders who need/want detail.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI) week. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from members who work with the Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI). Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

Greetings. I am Christine Johnson, the Director of Transformation and Quality Improvement for the Patient Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI). I am from the University of Massachusetts Medical School’s Center for Health Policy and Research. Today’s post shares how using self-assessment medical home transformation tools with primary care practices can help practices self-evaluate throughout the transformation process and provide data for the evaluation team.

Medical home transformation involves multiple stakeholders: health insurance payers, practices, policy makers and those providing transformation technical assistance. When practices complete the same tool and then share their results, multiple stakeholders can literally be on the same page with a similar understanding of what has been done, what needs to be done, and identifying gaps. Self-assessment tools can be tailored to your individual project’s goals, or standardized tools can be used ‘as is’.

Hot Tips:

  • Use tools to monitor progress and design technical assistance. Not only do the results from the transformation tools support practices to track and monitor their practice redesign, they allow technical assistance and practice staff to discuss any differences in their perception of the practice change efforts and can be a key resource for designing further technical assistance.
  • Utilize health insurance payers as stakeholders. Payers can see progress being made that is often intangible and support the practices in building the necessary foundation that will eventually lead to clinical performance improvement.
  • Administer self-assessment tools multiple times throughout a project to highlight small, but encouraging, changes.

Lessons Learned: Self-assessment tools can:

  • Establish a practice’s baseline
  • Enable practices to understand where they are in their transformation compared to other practices
  • Guide and structure practices’ transformation, particularly if the transformation tool has both an actual and expected project status over time
  • Allow technical assistance staff to step in early to support practices that are struggling in their transformation

Hot Tip: Save yourself and the practices the time of developing and testing a new tool. Take a look at the growing number of tools already available (see links below) rather than creating your own.

Hot Tip: Once practices have some experience using a self-assessment tool, ask practices who are finding the tool useful and are successfully accomplishing their PCMH transformation to present to the other practices either via a conference call or a webinar.

There are no “perfect” on-line assessments but our team suggests:

Qualis Site landing page

Transformation practice self-assessment tool

Medical Home Index

TransforMED MHIQ

Rad Resource: Measuring Medical Homes

Clipped from http://www.medicalhomeimprovement.org/knowledge/practices.html

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI) week. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from members who work with the Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI). Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. 

We are Linda Cabral and Laura Sefton from the University of Massachusetts Medical School’s Center for Health Policy and Research, and part of the PCMHI Evaluation Team whose work is being described all week. We want to share our team’s experience of being participant observers at ‘learning sessions’ and how it’s helped our overall multi-modal data collection efforts.

Staff from the 45 primary care practices in the PCMHI took part in seven, day-long learning sessions over the course of the 3-year initiative. These sessions offered technical assistance to practice staff by bringing in experts in PCMH implementation and provided opportunities for practices to learn from each other and share lessons learned. Through attendance, our team was able to observe the content being presented as well as the participants’ reactions to it, thereby giving us a better understanding of what practices are working on in their transformation to becoming medical homes. Additionally, our observations helped us to shape an interview guide for future site visits with the practices.

Hot Tips: Use a template to collect data in a standardized way. Each activity during a learning session had handouts or a PowerPoint presentation that contained information for the attendees. We developed a template to collect other relevant data from each session, which encompassed 3 mains areas:

Methodology Notes – What is the format of the activity, e.g., panel presentation, group activity? Who are the people leading the activity?

Field Notes – What is happening in the activity? Who is in the audience? What is the level of participant engagement? What types of questions are being raised? How are these questions being answered?

Personal Notes – What are your (the evaluator’s) impressions of the activity?

Use the opportunity to network with attendees. Explain why you, as an evaluator, are attending the session. Get participants’ thoughts on what would be important to evaluate. They may have ideas you hadn’t considered to shape future data collection questions. We used their ideas in developing our interview guide for future site visits.

Hold an internal team debriefing meeting after each event. These meetings allowed the evaluation team to share information with each other so that we could all have an understanding of what happened during all activities at each learning session.

Lesson Learned: Attending the learning sessions gave the team a frame of reference that was valuable to completing future site visit interviews that were conducted as part of the evaluation. When interviewees referenced the learning sessions, the interviewer’s prior knowledge allowed for a mutual understanding and helped build rapport.

Rad Resource: This article from on the online journal Qualitative Social Research describes in more detail participant observation as a data collection tool.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI) week. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from members who work with the Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI). Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

·

Hello. We are Valerie Konar, Carla Hillerns, and Michelle Landry from the University of Massachusetts Medical School’s Center for Health Policy and Research. Today, we share lessons learned from our evaluation work for the MA Patient Centered Medical Home Initiative.

The strength of many evaluation designs includes the use of a rigorous control group. However, identifying practices that received no exposure to medical home interventions was not possible as most practices in Massachusetts were exposed to some form of medical home knowledge. We therefore needed to secure a set of comparison practices that may be involved in medical home activities but not be receiving the same level of intervention as our study practices. Recruiting member practices for a comparison group and keeping them engaged over several years presented unique challenges.

How do you entice a busy primary care practice to sign-on and complete the tasks requested of them as part of the comparison data collection process with little or no compensation?

Hot Tip:   Network! Use professional organizations and contacts to spread the word and encourage participation.

  • Reach out to practices that initially showed interest in the intervention portion of the project, but were not selected; they may be interested in participating in a different way.
  • Vary and repeat your recruiting efforts until you generate the necessary interest.
  • Explain WHY participation is so important.

Hot Tip:   Offer feedback on the results of practices’ efforts as compensation. This feedback can be used as quality improvement tools or relate to other organizational goals.

  • If budgets allow, offer some form of compensation (e.g., small stipends) in acknowledgement of time and effort. Incrementally increase the stipend value over time to help encourage motivation to stay the course.

Engagement through the end of the project is key to successful comparison analyses. During the project’s life, how do you maintain comparison group’s participation?

Hot Tip:   Relationships are key! Simplifying your point of contact will eliminate confusion. Assigning one contact person who is knowledgeable and accessible will go a long way to maintaining relationships.

Hot Tip:   Try to time requests so as not to coincide with busy periods.

  • Bundle requests when possible to minimize the number of communications.
  • Make deliverables easy to complete and accommodate requests, if possible (e.g., allow responses by mail and web).
  • Predictability helps! Provide advance reminders for task assignments

Lesson Learned: Being mindful of what groups are able to provide. Being sensitive to the amount of time a task takes will increase your chance of receiving the necessary data.

Rad Resource:    RealWorld Evaluation: Working Under Budget, Time, Data and Political Constraints offers strategies for minimizing selection bias in a real-world context.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI) week. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from members who work with the Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI). Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

Hello. I am Valerie Konar from the University of Massachusetts Medical School’s Center for Health Policy and Research and Project Manager for the evaluation of the Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative. I’d like to share some tips about managing a complex multi-stakeholder project.

When the project began, these three groups operated in separate silos:

Konar 1

When the evaluation team needed data about the project to complete its evaluation, communication with the implementation team became essential as they were the gatekeepers to the study group of primary care practice sites. Members of the implementation team wanted the evaluation results to assist them with quality improvement, so the evaluation team had to determine which results could be shared without compromising the evaluation. Finally, external stakeholders wanted to learn about the project’s progress, so the evaluation team produced evidence-based reports for them.

As the project progressed, data and reports began to link and overlap among the three groups. The evaluation team remained in control of its data at all times and determined what information could be shared and how to share it.

Konar 2

Lessons Learned: A single project manager working with all groups (i.e., teams and stakeholders) can:

  • be the consistent contact and can answer questions regarding requests and reports. This allows teams to focus on their own tasks.
  • maximize data collection response rates by simplifying and communicating the ask, monitoring responses, using the implementation team to engage the study group, and sending reminders.

Hot Tips: Create an overview of the evaluation activities including names of people involved, data needed to answer evaluation questions, data collection tool purpose, description of administrative activities, timeline of requests and report deadlines. This overview can be used by other evaluators to appreciate all components of the evaluation. It can explain data requests to the study group so they understand where their time and effort is going and how they may benefit from the information. External stakeholders can see the breadth of data needed for a comprehensive evaluation.

Engage and communicate with external stakeholders and implementation staff. Invite implementation staff to evaluation meetings to discuss administration and results. Inform stakeholders where they can find both formative and summative evaluation reports.

Incorporate evaluation activities and timelines in all project correspondence, websites and documents:

  • List (and continually update) requests and report distribution
  • Post evaluation activities, timelines and reports on the project website
  • Present results in webinars with external stakeholders

Insert evaluation activities into project contracts to ensure compliance and instill evaluation as integral to the project.

Provide evaluation data to study subjects. Study subjects want to know how they are doing and information engages them in the process.

Rad Resource: Create a Gantt Chart timeline that everyone can read and understand.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI) week. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from members who work with the Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI). Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

 

·

Hi, I’m Ann Lawthers, Principal Investigator for the evaluation of the Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI), and faculty in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health at the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS). This week, the UMMS PCMHI Evaluation Team will be presenting a series of Hot Tips, Lessons Learned and Rad Resources for evaluating large, complex and multi-stakeholder projects. We cover issues that surfaced during the design, data collection and analysis phases.

Hot Tip: When beginning to think about the design of a large, complex project, consider using a mixed methods approach to maximize the breadth and depth of evaluation perspectives. The Massachusetts PCMHI’s principal stakeholders – state government officials, insurers, and the practices themselves – have invested time and financial resources in helping primary care practices adopt the core competencies of a medical home. Each stakeholder group came into the project with different goals and agendas.

We selected a mixed methods evaluation approach to answer three deceptively simple questions:

  1. To what extent and how do practices transform to become medical homes?
  1. To what extent and in what ways do patients become active partners in their health care?
  1. What is the initiative’s impact on service use, clinical quality, patient and provider outcomes?

Lesson Learned: Our mixed methods approach allowed us to tap into the perspectives and interests of multiple stakeholder groups. The primary care practices participating in the PCMHI demonstration were keenly interested in the “how” of transformation (Question 1) while state policy makers wanted to know “if” practices transformed (also Question 1). We addressed the “how” principally through qualitative interviews with practice staff and the TransforMED Medical Home Implementation Quotient (MHIQ) questionnaire, completed by practice staff.

Participating practices also cared a great deal about the initiative’s affect on patients. Did patients perceive a change and become more actively involved in their health care (Question 2)? We used patient surveys to address this question.

Finally, all stakeholder groups were interested in the impact question (Question 3). Claims data, clinical data reported by practices, staff surveys and patient surveys all provided different views of how the PCMHI affected service use, clinical quality and other outcomes.

The American Evaluation Association is celebrating Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI) week. The contributions all this week to aea365 come from members who work with the Massachusetts Patient-Centered Medical Home Initiative (PCMHI). Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org. aea365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators.

My name is Susan Wolfe and I am the owner of Susan Wolfe and Associates, LLC, a consulting firm that applies Community Psychology principles to strengthening organizations and communities.  Most of the evaluation work I do is with federally funded Healthy Start programs that are working to reduce disparities in infant mortality rates.

According to the Office of Minority Health, African Americans have 2.3 times the infant mortality rate and are 3 times as likely to die as infants due to low birth weight related complications when compared with non-Hispanic whites.

Now, be honest – what is your first reaction to this information?  What would be your first recommendations for intervention? Education? Interventions with the pregnant women?  Would you be surprised to learn that studies have ruled out genetics, behavior, and economics as explanatory factors for these disparities?  Would be you more surprised to learn that there is increasing evidence that the stress of racism may be a contributing factor? Whenever someone shows disparities between groups, it may immediately be interpreted that there is something that group is doing differently, which will automatically lead to an individual-focused solution to what might be a systemic problem.

Hot Tip: When you present statistics showing disparities between two groups, think about how they may be interpreted and used. If additional explanatory information is available, present it with the disparities data. Don’t just present the data alone, but present accompanying data about possible explanations for the disparities at multiple levels. Present both evidence that shows what does contribute to the disparities, and also evidence dispelling possible contributors.

Hot Tip: Use ecological models to promote thinking about potential contributors to disparities from a systems viewpoint and guide your audience to think about the issue at multiple levels.

Rad Resource:  The Social Determinants of Health Model, Life Course Theory, and other ecological models are useful tools to introduce when presenting health disparities data to illustrate the potential multiple levels of contributions to the problem and potential interventions.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) web site has wonderful resources at this site.

The American Evaluation Association is celebratingCP TIG Week with our colleagues in the Community Psychology Topical Interest Group. The contributions all week come from CP TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this aea365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the aea365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an aea365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to aea365@eval.org.

·

<< Latest posts

Older posts >>

Archives

To top