Similarities and differences in program registers: A case study |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Pennsylvania State University, United States;2. University of Washington, United States;1. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1G 5Z3, Canada;2. Department of Innovation in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8M5, Canada;3. Population Health, Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 7K4, Canada;4. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada;1. Queen’s University, School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Kingston, ON, Canada;2. Exercise is Medicine Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada;3. Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology, Canada;1. Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education, Economy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria;2. Department of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA;3. Department of Special Education with focus on Society, Participation, and Disability, Institute of Education, University of Zurich, Switzerland;1. Clearinghouse for Military Family Readiness, The Pennsylvania State University, 402 Marion Place, University Park, PA 16802, USA;2. School of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences, Oregon State University, 410 Waldo Hall, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA;3. Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Education, The Pennsylvania State University, 107 Ferguson Bldg, University Park, PA 16802, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Researchers, clinicians, and other professionals are increasingly in need of cost-effective, evidence-based programs and practices. However, these individuals may lack the time and, for some, the required expertise to search for and identify such interventions. To address this concern, several online registers that list or categorize programs according to their empirical evidence of effectiveness have been established. Although these registers are designed to simplify the task of selecting evidence-based interventions, the use of distinct review processes and standards by each register creates discrepancies in final program classifications, which can pose a challenge for users. The present case study highlights three programs that have been evaluated by more than one register and have received similar or different classifications. Reasons for inconsistencies are discussed, and several recommendations for evaluating organizations and register users are provided to enhance the functionality and ease of use of online program registers. |
| |
| Keywords: | Program evaluation Military Evidence-based Program register |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
