**MCH Training Program Resource Center**

**Reporting and Monitoring Workgroup**

**September 17, 2007 Conference Call -- Notes**

The workgroup reviewed the draft document and reporting tool Judy
Gallagher drafted based on the August 15 workgroup discussion. That
document attempted to organize the group's thoughts on a template that
could be used to assist with reporting and documenting faculty efforts
related to the transfer of research to policy. Participants used the
discussion document focus further discussion of the steps involved in
the process of translating research to policy and the role of MCH
Training Program-supported faculty in this process and to how data on
these activities can be collected.

Participants were in agreement that the key steps in the policy
development process are represented in the document. No additional steps
need to be added. Discussion points on concepts that need to be
clarified or added are summarized below.

-   It is important that faculty are adequately prepared to engage in
    policy-related work, including having continuing education and other
    resources available to them. Faculty need to feel comfortable
    working in this arena.

-   Impacting policy can encompass a broad array of things including
    influencing resource allocation. This can include research on
    cost-benefit ratios of specific interventions. It is important to
    consider and highlight the range of ways that research can influence
    policy.

-   Include a more specific definition of how policy is being defined.
    The group discussed this during a previous call, but it needs to be
    more explicitly stated so that everyone is on the same page.

-   Consider how faculty builds capacity of trainees to engage in policy
    development. This could be integrated in the potential role of MCH
    Training Program faculty under each component. Specifically, it
    should be included under "Describe and define the problem." A
    potential role of faculty is to develop a milieu for student
    research. This would include things like mentoring, guidance and
    infrastructure to encourage and support student research).

Changes were suggested for the draft reporting tool as follows:

-   Break down the description section into specific columns such as key
    persons involved, activities, processes and outcomes.

-   Timeframe should be considered. Most policy development activities
    take place over a period of years. We need to understand how the
    activities have evolved over time and which activities have taken
    place during the year for which the faculty is reporting.

-   The tool should function as both a checklist and a guide for
    gathering narrative text. Include instructions that provide specific
    questions to be answered for the narrative section in order to
    gather comparable data across programs.

-   Ultimately the data collection effort should move towards
    development of a performance measure. The performance measure should
    capture information in two areas:

1)  the degree to which faculty are developing capacity building of
    trainees in this area

2)  the degree to faculty are engaged in components of policy
    development themselves

> Irene Jillson graciously volunteered to develop draft questions to
> guide the Narrative section of the data collection form. She will
> circulate the questions to the group via email. Workgroup members are
> asked to share comments and additions via the Listserv prior to the
> October conference call. The questions and comments will be discussed
> during the next conference call and used to refine the draft data
> collection instrument.

Next Call: October 17^th^ at 1:00 pm EDT.