APPENDIX A: MCH
TRAINING PROGRAM EVALUATION
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Noma Anderson, Ph.D.
School of Communications Howard University Washington, DC
Robert Blum, M.D., Ph.D.
Leadership Education in Adolescent Health University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN
Anita Farel, Dr.P.H.
Department of Maternal and Child Health University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health Chapel Hill, NC
Millie Jones, M.P.H.
Bureau of Family and Community Health Wisconsin Department of Health Madison, WI
Margaret Teng Lee, M.D.
Health Resources Branch HHS/HRSA, New York Office New York, NY
Lisa Paine, C.N.M., Dr.P.H.
Department of Maternal and Child Health Boston University School of Public Health Boston, MA
Deborah Perry, Ph.D.
Child Development Center Georgetown University Medical Center Washington, DC
Gregory Redding, M.D.
Pediatric Pulmonary Division University of Washington School of Medicine Seattle, WA
Herbert Zimiles, Ph.D.
Arizona State University Tempe, AZ
Appendix B:Site-Visited Projects And Projects
and Project Directors
Greg Alexander, Sc.D.
University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Public Health
Judith Bernstein, R.N.C., M.S.N., Ph.D.
Boston University, Nursing
Peter Blasco, M.D.
Oregon Health Sciences University, LEND
Robert Blum, M.D., Ph.D.
University of Minnesota, LEAH
Joann Bodurtha, M.D., M.P.H.
Virginia Commonwealth University, LEND
Pierre Buekens, M.D., Ph.D.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Public Health
Sharon Cermak, Ed.D., OTR/L
Boston University, Occupational Therapy
Fred Connell, M.D., M.P.H.
University of Washington, School of Public Health
Janice Dodds, Ed.D.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Nutrition
Michelé Gaines, M.D.
Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, HBCU
Betsy Haughton, Ed.D.
University of Tennessee–Knoxville, Nutrition
Wendy Hellerstedt, M.P.H., Ph.D.
University of Minnesota, School of Public Health
Albert Hergenroeder, M.D.
Baylor College of Medicine, LEAH
Charlie Irwin, M.D.
University of California at San Francisco, LEAH
Murray Kappelman, M.D. Linda Grossman, M.D.
University of Maryland at Baltimore, Behavioral Pediatrics
University of Washington, Physical Therapy
Melvin Levine, M.D.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, LEND
Raymond Lyrene, M.D.
University of Alabama at Birmingham, Pediatric Pulmonary Center
Diane Magyary, Ph.D., A.R.N.P.
University of Washington, Nursing
John McLaughlin, M.D.
University of Washington, LEND
Sheila Moseé, M.D.
Howard University, HBCU
Lisa Paine, C.N.M., Dr.P.H.
Boston University, School of Public Health
Diane Parham, Ph.D., OTR, FAOTA
University of Southern California, Occupational Therapy
Stephen Parker, M.D.
Boston University, Behavioral Pediatrics
Kay Payne, Ph.D.
Howard University, Communication Disorders
Alan Percy, M.D.
University of Alabama at Birmingham, LEND
THE MCH TRAINING PROGRAM
Julia Rauch, Ph.D. Ed Peccuconis, Ph.D.
University of Maryland at Baltimore, Social Work
Greg Redding, M.D.
University of Washington, Pediatric Pulmonary Center
Gary Goldstein, M.D. Bruce Shapiro, M.D.
Kennedy Krieger Institute/Johns Hopkins University, LEND
Mary Story, Ph.D., R.D.
University of Minnesota, Nutrition
Lane Tanner, M.D.
University of California at San Francisco, Behavioral Pediatrics
William Vann, Jr., D.M.D., M.S., Ph.D.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Pediatric Dentistry
APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER TRAINEES
PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW OF THE INTERVIEWS
Trainees who complete MCH programs represent a significant product of the MCH Training Program. Consequently, the evaluation included an appraisal of former trainees perceptions of the impact of the Training Program on their professional development. This aspect of the evaluation addressed whether trainees who graduated from training programs in 1990 or 1995 have assumed leadership positions. Interviews were conducted to probe trainees perceptions of the extent to which the MCH Training Program assisted them in assuming these leadership positions.
Several factors were considered in determining the sampling methodology for the interviews, including the diversity of former trainees with respect to training priorities, year of graduation, and whether trainees received financial support from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB).
Project directors from the 13 training priorities were asked to generate lists of all trainees who graduated from their programs in 1990 or 1995, including those who received financial support from MCHB and those who did not. A total of 763 trainee names were provided.
Budget and resource constraints allowed only a portion of the trainees to be interviewed. The number of MCH-supported trainees on the list was small but they represent an important investment on the part of MCHB; therefore, a decision was made to attempt to contact all MCHB-supported trainees who graduated in 1990. Non–MCHB-sup-ported trainees who graduated in 1990 were excluded from the sample primarily because of the difficulty in locating and contacting them, as well as the perceived difficulty in comparing findings between MCH-supported and non–MCH-sup-ported trainees.
To determine whether there were differences in the experiences of MCHB-supported and non–MCHB-supported trainees, and because grantees generally had a greater degree of confidence in the accuracy of contact information for more recent graduates, efforts were made to contact both MCHB-supported and non–MCHB-sup-ported 1995 graduates from all training priorities. The exceptions in this case were the Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities (LEND) and School of Public Health priorities. Because of the large number of trainees from these two priorities, a random sample of approximately one-third of these trainees was selected, including students who received stipends and those who did not. Former trainees from the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) priority were excluded from the sample because this category of grants does not financially support long-term trainees.
A final sample of 423 former trainees across 12 training priorities was selected to either participate in a brief telephone interview or to provide written responses to a questionnaire, which was mailed to them.
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Several protocols served as models in the development
of the questionnaire, including the University of Southern California University
Trainee Follow-up Survey,the Maternal and Child Health Bureau/Adolescent Health Training Programs Trainee Follow-up Survey,and the Leadership Training Survey designed and conducted by the seven MCHB-funded Pediatric Pulmonary Leadership Training Centers.
To facilitate data analysis, the questionnaire contained primarily closed-ended questions. These questions were grouped into the following areas:
- Demographic information
- Current employment
- Knowledge, skills, and values gained from the MCH Training Program
- Participation in leadership activities
- Program strengths and weaknesses
The questionnaire also contained open-ended questions in which trainees were asked to discuss their greatest achievement attributable to their experience in the MCH Training Program, as well as why they would or would not consider themselves leaders in the field.
The MCHB Training Program Former Trainee Interview protocol is available at http://www. ncemch.org/spr/default.html#mchbtraining.
Former trainees were initially contacted by mail. Each trainee was sent an introductory packet containing (1) a cover letter briefly explaining the background and purpose of the study, (2) a copy of the Georgetown University Institutional Review Board consent form for the study, (3) a contact information form, and (4) the interview questions. Trainees were given the option of either setting up a time to participate in a brief telephone interview or returning the questionnaire with their written responses. Once the contact information form was received, trainees who preferred to be interviewed by telephone were contacted to schedule the interview at a convenient time for them and then called at the appointed time to be interviewed. The telephone interviews lasted approximately 25 minutes.
Nonrespondents were first followed-up by mail with a reminder postcard and then by telephone. For trainees who provided an e-mail address, an electronic message was sent prior to the follow-up postcard. One attempt by mail and two attempts by telephone were made to reach nonrespondents before excluding them from the sample.
Key findings from the survey are presented in the body of this report. Additional findings are presented below.
As shown in Table 5, a total of 423 former trainees were sampled for participation in the interviews. The largest proportion (30 percent; n=129/423) of these trainees were from the LEND training priority, followed by the Schools of Public Health (23 percent; n=97/423), Pediatric Pulmonary Centers (PPC) (13 percent: n=54/423), and Nutrition (13 percent; 53/423) priorities. The highest response rate came from trainees in the Pediatric Dentistry priority (40 percent; n=2/5), followed by Nutrition (38 percent; n=20/53) and Schools of Public Health (34 percent; n=33/97).
Graduates from the 1995 cohort accounted for nearly two-thirds of the respondents (65 percent; n=72/110), in part because 1990 graduates were more difficult to contact.