Skip to content

http://miptoolkit.com/

Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color orange color green color
You are here: Home Modules Main Case Examples Piloting the Multiple Intervention Program Tool Ki Impressions from Observing the Process
Impressions from Observing the Process Print E-mail
The observed participation level and willingness to experiment with a new web-based tool was very high among team members. Although all members were familiar with different public health websites, this was the first time that they were planning a program together using this type of technology. There were very few technical glitches during the pilot process. The only one noticed occurred during the first session: the laptop computer screen was not visible while the projector was on. This made it harder for the person navigating the website, because most people are not used to navigation with a mouse on a larger screen.

Having a computer linked to the internet readily available during the planning process, led to the exploration of some data sources that the team likely would not have accessed, certainly not during a team meeting. The projector facilitated that all members were able to have access to the computer screen, which is a prerequisite for making a joint program planning process work. Immediate access to the web can be considered a spin-off suggestion for team program planning.

Some of the socio-ecological assessment questions led team members to seek new data sources, which helped them to learn more about their target population. However, the MIP Tool Kit website did not provide sufficient links to readily accessible statistical information about Canadian Immigration figures, or immigration facts (e.g., classes of immigration, settlement and adaptation patterns). Since newcomers tend to be included as one of the priority target groups for public health interventions, such links could provide useful insights for program planners. Additional links providing information on other at risk, priority populations (e.g., Aboriginals, persons with disabilities) also should be considered.

The process of pilot testing the Tool Kit advanced slower than anticipated. We were unable to test the application of the three last modules in the allocated time period. It is difficult to assess whether practitioners would have reviewed their initial classification of the project as a Multiple Intervention Program. The explanations in Module 2 and 3 and the associated activity templates in which practitioners are required to map out their interventions at different system levels might have provided new insights.

The decision which intervention to pursue occurred before the MIP planning process had been completed prior to a review of Module 1 and completing the Introductory Activity. As a result the pilot resulted in a monitoring activity rather than a planning exercise.

Practitioners seemed to gravitate to activity templates that they are able to apply to their own planning process. As a result, some important information presented in each module as part of the content of the website might not have been reviewed in detail. For example, during the last three sessions, there were very few incidents in which team members requested to return to the website for clarification.

Module 1 Activity template seemed to include too many detailed questions, which might have distracted this team from advancing to the key planning steps: selecting and mapping out the interventions aimed at different system levels, identifying the underlying theories and planning for synergies.