Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Funding
  3. Challenge Competitions
  4. Judging Criteria in the Promoting Pediatric Primary Prevention (P4) Challenge

Judging Criteria in the Promoting Pediatric Primary Prevention (P4) Challenge

For each phase of the Challenge, a panel of Federal Judges evaluated the applications and selected winning submissions, in collaboration with MCHB.

P4 Challenge Evaluation Criteria

Phase 1

Understanding of Population Served and Its Need

  • Does the contestant demonstrate an understanding of the population served, key barriers to access to well-child visits and/or immunizations, and need for innovative approaches to address the stated problem?

Approach

  • How well does the contestant leverage appropriate partnerships to maximize impact in its community?
  • Is the intervention feasible given the prize money and time frame?
  • How well does the contestant demonstrate connections to primary care?
  • How well does the approach incorporate patient/family-centered design (e.g., addressing barriers to access and utilization for preventive services for children, parents’ hesitancy regarding vaccination, and well-child visits during the pandemic)?
  • Regarding the contestant’s data collection and analysis approach:
    • How well has the contestant demonstrated a clear plan to capture baseline data and to show improvement in the targeted outcome(s)?
    • How feasible is the approach?
    • Does the planned approach protect patient information appropriately?

Innovation

  • How innovative is the design and the content of the intervention, and how responsive is the intervention to the community’s need and the available data?
  • How promising is the intervention with respect to potential for buy-in from the population of focus?

Potential Impact

  • How likely is the proposed solution to increase well-visits and/or immunizations in a participating or collaborating primary care setting?
  • How likely is the plan to measure impact accurately?
  • How likely is the proposed solution to be sustained?

Phase 2

Impact and Approach

  • Based on the data, how effective of an intervention did the contestant introduce (a recorded increase in well-visits and/or immunizations)?
  • How well did the contestant demonstrate their ability to adapt and strengthen the intervention based on data and feedback along the way?
  • How effectively did the contestant mobilize partnerships to increase impact of the intervention?

Sustainability

  • How strong is the potential for the intervention to be sustained beyond the duration of the P4 Challenge?
  • How strong is the potential for scaling in other, similar communities?

Innovation

  • How well does the contestant set itself apart from the Phase 2 competition in delivery of its innovation?
  • How promising is the intervention in terms of potential for buy-in from the population of focus?
Date Last Reviewed: