Child Injury Prevention

• Home
• Child Safety at Home: Mission Possible
  • Media
  • Links
• What is Child Injury Prevention?
  • Definitions
  • Ottawa Charter
  • Jakarta Declaration
  • E's of injury prevention
  • Haddon's Matrix
  • Haddon's Countermeasures
  • Ecological model
  • Social Determinants
  • Safe Communities
  • Project management
• The ChIPP Project
  • Planning
  • Implementing
  • Evaluating
• Community Action
  • Phase 1 - Look at the problem
  • Phase 2 - Think and plan
  • Phase 3 - Act and implement
  • Phase 4 - Relect and evaluate
  • Definitions
  • Injury data sources
  • What works
  • Goals, objectives and strategies
  • Who can help
• Contact us
• References

Evaluating ChIPP

Why evaluate?

The evaluation phase of the Child Injury Prevention Project (ChIPP) was important because it was an opportunity to:

• identify the process, impact and outcomes from start to finish of a significant, collaborative 5 year trial in order to inform future directions/implications for child injury prevention in Queensland
• play our part in contributing to the growing evidence base regarding child injury prevention.

Snapshot

As part of good project management, we recognised the necessity and value of rigorous and comprehensive evaluation particularly given that this was a trial. The following provides a summary of how the evaluation was structured and undertaken.

• Considered from the outset as part of planning
• Undertaken by an external, independent, experienced academic/researcher (Injury Prevention and Control Australia), as well as a routine part of project management, of specific strategies by locally based Project Officers and their Working Groups.
• Included process measures to identify "if the project was being implemented in accordance with international best practice standards of project implementation?" Tools used included Process Logs
• Included impact measures to identify "if the project was increasing community capacity to respond to childhood injury and was there a consequent reduction in the community prevalence of risk factors for childhood injury?" Tools used included a Community Capacity Index, a Home Safety Practices Survey (similar to the Home Safety Checklist used for the Child Safety at Home: Mission Possible campaign ) and an Environmental Hazard Audit.
• Included outcome measures to identify "if the project was leading to a reduction in the incidence and severity of injury in children 0-4 years from falls, poisoning, drowning and burns/scalds and is the project cost effective?" Tools used here included Hospital admissions (separations), Emergency Department attendances and an economic costs and savings analysis.
• Used a pre (before) and post (after) intervention format to compare changes in process, impact and outcomes, with an additional mid-term review.
• Used both qualitative and quantitative information for a richer and more wholistic evaluative analysis.
• Used a model which included intervention (Mackay and Mount Isa) and control (Bundaberg and Mareeba) communities which were matched according to the following criteria:  within Queensland, similar coastal or rural/remote category (including ARIA, Accessibility / Remoteness Index of Australia score), similar population demographics (highlighting Indigenous), similar SEIFA (Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas) score and similar geographical size.

top of page

Results

Apart from the evaluation identifying the effects of the Project, each phase of the evaluation has added value to the Project's interventions by allowing for reflection and refinement (as necessary).

Baseline
Extracts from the Baseline evaluation report was compiled in 2003 and published in February 2004. This report highlighted the baseline process, impact and outcome data collected to inform the Project's evaluation.

Mid-Term
Extracts from the Mid-Term evaluation report was published in May 2006 and provided a useful opportunity to monitor progress as well as inform the final stage of the Project.

Final
The Final Evaluation Report of the ChIPP Project, June 2008 has now been completed.

top of page

Evaluation from a Project Officer's point of view

As well as these large scale and long term evaluation processes, there was also a strong element of on-going daily evaluation undertaken by the Project Officers themselves. A summary of these local evaluation strategies is available.

Useful reference

One reference which may be particularly helpful is 'Making evaluation an integral part of injury prevention programme implementation, McClure R, Turner C, Yorkston E,  International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2005, 247-250.

Publications

As part of the commitment to improving the data base around child injury prevention, a number of related articles have been published in relevant peer reviewed journals. A list of these articles  is available.

top of page