Annex 4 POSSIBLE APPROACH TO EVALUATION
At the meeting of SEHD and HaHP representatives on 14 December 2004 the following points were agreed.
- Evaluation is of crucial importance to HaHP Phase 2 as a national health demonstration project; some outcomes need to be further clarified; and there needs to be clarity over what data are to be collected, when and by whom.
- There are significant limitations to what can reasonably be expected of HaHP in itself as regards designing and delivering the evaluation, especially as there are real concerns as to the likelihood that an NHS evaluation post of the anticipated grade would attract and retain a suitably skilled person. there are also limits to the extent to which HaHP partners' senior staff can be expected to provide ongoing evaluation leadership inputs; moreover, it would be highly desirable for HaHP to have the support of an academic input and/or other high-level specialist evaluation expertise.
- SEHD will support HaHP in the identification and timeous realisation of a practical and suitably streamlined evaluation solution.
- HaHP would explore possibilities with NHS Health Scotland.
Following discussion involving representatives of the Scottish Executive, NHS Health Scotland and NHS Argyll and Clyde the following HaHP evaluation network approach is suggested as a potential solution for exploring further as a matter of high priority
Notes
#1: Health Scotland input highly relevant, given national lead role in health improvement evaluation, sponsorship of RUHBC (see #2) and links with all national demonstration projects
#2: RUHBC (Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh) currently seeking to fill new post of Head of Evaluation, viewed by Health Scotland as an important health improvement resource; Erica Wimbush of Health Scotland will discuss possible involvement in HaHP with RUHBC Director, Steve Platt
#3: Post would be in HaHP, but link to RUHBC likely to make it more attractive to individuals with suitable expertise; possibility of Honorary Fellowship would need to be discussed with RUHBC/University of Edinburgh.
#4: See #3. Postholder might work towards PhD.
#5: Inclusion of other academic adviser(s) would widen/deepen expertise, provide in-built peer review at all stages, and facilitate wide engagement in HaHP. Invitations to participate actively could be sent to all relevant university departments/other relevant research institutions, but need to avoid unwieldy arrangements/excessive bureaucracy.
#6: HaHP Evaluation Network would link to other relevant networks, e.g. Heart Health Learning Network and network of national health demonstration projects.