Process Evaluation and Lessons Learned From Engaging Local Policymakers in the B'More Healthy Communities for Kids Trial.

Abstract

Partnerships linking researchers to the policymaking process can be effective in increasing communication and supporting health policy. However, these policy partnerships rarely conduct process evaluation. The Policy Working Group (Policy WG) was the policy-level intervention of the multilevel B'More Healthy Communities for Kids (BHCK) trial. The group sought to align interests of local policymakers, inform local food and nutrition policy, introduce policymakers to a new simulation modeling, and sustain intervention levels of BHCK. We conducted an evaluation on the Policy WG between July 2013 and May 2016. We evaluated process indicators for reach, dose-delivered, and fidelity and developed a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. The policy intervention was implemented with high reach and dose-delivered. Fidelity measures improved from moderate to nearly high over time. The number of health-related issues on policymakers' agenda increased from 50% in the first 2 years to 150% of the high standard in Year 3. SWOT analysis integrated a stakeholder feedback survey to consider areas of strength, weakness, opportunity, and threats. Although the fidelity of the modeling was low at 37% of the high standard, stakeholders indicated that the simulation modeling should be a primary purpose for policy intervention. Results demonstrate that process evaluation and SWOT analysis is useful for tracking the progress of policy interventions in multilevel trials and can be used to monitor the progress of building partnerships with policymakers.