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 Module 2: Identify Intervention Options Reviewing the evidence on possible options
Reviewing the evidence on possible options Print E-mail
Module 2: Identify Intervention Options
Article Index
Reviewing the evidence on possible options
Generate a supposition of hypothesis
Using a program logic model
All Pages

Ontario Public Health PractionersYou will find a wide variety of information available to guide your thinking about what interventions to use at different levels. Start by identifying and reviewing research evidence on effective interventions for the issue you’re working on. Possible sources include:

  • Empirical evidence of effectiveness such as systematic reviews of research on interventions
  • Theories
  • Community, practitioner, and manager experience
  • Lab-based research
  • Regulatory frameworks

For another illustration of what to consider when selecting intervention options, please refer to Example 7 - What we did and should have done in a socio-ecological assessment from the Fall Prevention and the Elderly Project.

Fall prevention and the elderly - Selecting intervention options

Multiple intervention programs must target at least two levels of the socio-ecological system with different interventions, but finding and assessing which interventions to use can be daunting, as we found in our work with the regional fall-prevention coalition. The problem was huge and there was a large range of interventions to consider. We started by meeting partner organizations to discuss where joint action would be most effective, and decided to work together on environmental hazards. Even with this narrower focus, there was a long list of hazards to address. On top of that, the coalition was new, and unaccustomed to working together.

With input from the research team, the coalition agreed on criteria to prioritize environmental hazards. Our research team provided data from the literature and regional studies to rate objective criteria, which included effectiveness (the expected impact of intervention strategies), the reach of the interventions and the feasibility of change. This led the coalition to tackle two hazards - stairs and bathtubs - and we began to research and develop integrated intervention programs.

At the same time we were developing our program criteria, we were working on subjective criteria to develop an effective coalition, which was important as we started our work together. These subjective criteria included the likelihood that working jointly on environmental hazards would make the coalition feel like a team, and the potential that the intervention would to yield an early success story, which would also build team spirit.



Last Updated on Sunday, 31 May 2009 17:53