Vaccine · 2025
Utilizing the Program Impact Pathways framework for improving COVID-19 vaccine confidence and uptake: demonstrations of multi-sector collaboration from two geographies in Connecticut.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beaulieu Allison, LaMonaca Katherine, Higginbottom Jackson, Foster Jaime, Macklin Bernard, Muhammad Tahnee Cookson, Schwartz Elizabeth, Comerford Beth P, Santilli Alycia, O'Connor Duffany Kathleen, Pérez-Escamilla Rafael
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic underscored longstanding inequities and limited coordination among vaccination partners. The Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center utilized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Prevention Research Center Program supplemental COVID-19 funding from April 2021-September 2022 to support existing efforts through convened task forces. A Program Impact Pathway (PIP) framework was utilized to co-identify, develop, and evaluate three interventions in New Haven and the Lower Naugatuck Valley, Connecticut.
METHODS: PIP analysis was used to identify, monitor, and address critical quality control points hindering intervention implementation. Study outcomes were intervention uptake, satisfaction, and change in knowledge and skills among frontline workers.
RESULTS: Interventions supported task force partner work and enhanced overall collaboration during COVID-19 pandemic response. In New Haven, the task force identified and implemented interventions to improve outreach and education and partnerships expanded. In the Lower Naugatuck Valley, a theory-based messaging toolkit served as a valuable resource.
DISCUSSION: The PIP served as a practical and flexible tool to guide task force discussions in the context of a rapidly shifting landscape, fostered shared decision-making, and improved intervention implementation.
CONCLUSION: PRCs can apply the PIP, leveraging their expertise in community engagement, implementation science, and monitoring and evaluation, to support local initiatives.
METHODS: PIP analysis was used to identify, monitor, and address critical quality control points hindering intervention implementation. Study outcomes were intervention uptake, satisfaction, and change in knowledge and skills among frontline workers.
RESULTS: Interventions supported task force partner work and enhanced overall collaboration during COVID-19 pandemic response. In New Haven, the task force identified and implemented interventions to improve outreach and education and partnerships expanded. In the Lower Naugatuck Valley, a theory-based messaging toolkit served as a valuable resource.
DISCUSSION: The PIP served as a practical and flexible tool to guide task force discussions in the context of a rapidly shifting landscape, fostered shared decision-making, and improved intervention implementation.
CONCLUSION: PRCs can apply the PIP, leveraging their expertise in community engagement, implementation science, and monitoring and evaluation, to support local initiatives.