Spring Break Challenge March 11-15, 2013

1. Spring Break ChallengeMarch 11-15, 2013 Evaluation Findings Prepared by Lynsie Ranker

2. Executive Summary

3. Spring Break Challenge: A Valuable, Real-World Experience • The program was seen as an innovative, valuable chance to have a “real-world” experience. • Many appreciated the opportunity to engage with the BCC staff and South End community. • The majority request more time at BCC and interacting with the South End community • The interdisciplinary aspect of the program resonated with many students, and was frequently listed as one of the program’s major strengths. • Many were drawn to the program initially as an opportunity to engage with students outside their school • Students feel each school brings a unique and valuable perspective • However, SSW and Sargent students note the program was very SPH focused and that their role may be as program developers at a later stage • Learning new skills was often considered most valuable, rather than learning about a specific topic. • Many felt it filled a gap in their classroom learning, allowing them to go and do

4. Participants Often Identified Common Program Strengths. • These strengths appear to be a major contributor to overall satisfaction with the program • Many feel any future programming should include and build upon these key strengths

5. Yet Many Feel there is Room for Improvement in Some Aspects of the Program

6. Students are Excited about the Future of Blackstone • Students feel they play a critical role, both in bringing their skill sets and giving their time. • Students see this as a location for future practicums, more long term research projects and site placements (for Nutrition, PT, SSW) moving forward • Many want to be involved in discussion and planning of “next steps” and kept informed. • Feedback from student interviews frequently suggest future tasks focus beyond the use of FitWell, to the major barriers and drivers for accessing BCC. Recommendations include: • Creating programming that will encourage individuals to visit the center • Organizing communications campaigns and outdoor activities to increase visibility • Assisting BCC in becoming a center for advocacy within the community to address some of the major barriers to eating right and staying fit • Several encourage the Practice Office to set clear time tables and milestones to maintain momentum and excitement.

7. Objectives and Methodology

8. Spotlight on Obesity Objectives • In Fall 2012, the Practice Office implemented the Spotlight on Obesity campaign. • The overall program objectives are as follows:

9. Spring Break Challenge was Designed to be in Line with that of Spotlight on Obesity • The key purpose of the week-long event was to allow students to engage with the local community and gain a real-world experience in community assessment.

10. Spring Break Challenge: An Overview • Who: Teams of students from BUSPH, BU School of Social Work and Sargent College • 34 students participated (23 SPH, 8 Sargent, 3 SSW) • What: A week-long, intensive interdisciplinary program • Students worked in interdisciplinary teams to address a specific public health problem related to obesity within the local community • To acquire skills necessary to complete the task, students attended workshops and skill sessions led by experts • Final products: 10-minute oral presentation of their findingsand final report including a draft survey • When: Over Spring Break 2013 • Where: The students worked with the Blackstone Community Center (BCC) located in the South End

11. Evaluation Research Objectives

12. Research questions were developed using the program research objectives

13. Methodology • The evaluation used a mix methodology including both quantitative and qualitative feedback to help answer the research questions. • A mixed methodology was favored in order to allow us to explore not only the “what” but also the “why”: • Quantitative feedback allowed for an objective assessment of what the experience was like for participants • It also allowed for some pre and post evaluation of the major learning objectives and outcomes the team was interested in exploring • As the program was new, including qualitative feedback was important to the Practice Office. • Including detailed feedback allowed the research to better understand the value of the program to students, the program’s major strengths and potential areas for improvement moving forward

14. Methodology: Quantitative • Pre and post-program surveys were distributed to participants. • Pre-program surveys were filled out prior to the start of lectures on Monday • Post-program surveys were filled out prior to the final presentations on Friday • Metrics measured included: • Perceived “preparation” to fulfill learning objectives on a 5-point likert scale where 3 is neutral (measured pre and post) • Overall satisfaction (post) • Beliefs and attitudes surrounding the experience, as measured by level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale where 3 is neutral (measured post) • Open ends regarding expectations (pre), strengths of the program (post) and areas for improvement (post) • Basic demographics (pre) • 31 of the 34 students completed the post-program survey. • Small sample size limited the use of complex analysis techniques or significant testing between pre and post ratings for the learning objectives

15. Methodology: Qualitative • 45 minute interviews were conducted with 7 program participants. • Students were recruited from across the three participating schools • 1 Sargent (nutrition), 1 SSW and 5 SPH students were interviewed • Each of the six teams was represented as well, to ensure experiences across potential differing team dynamics were captured • Interview flow included: • What attracted them to the program and what their expectations were • Overall experience • A walk-through of the weeks major events • If and how the program fit into their course of study • The programs strengths and areas for improvement • Perceptions regarding the potential role of students moving forward

16. Attendance

17. The Majority of Participants were SB and EPI Concentrators from SPH • 23 out of 34 participants were exclusively SPH students, 8 were from Sargent, and 3 were from SSW • One SSW student was a dual degree MSW/MPH Half were Nutrition and half were Physical Therapy PhDs

18. How Students heard about the program varied by school • The majority of SPH students report hearing about the program through the Student Insider or some other email communication. • None report seeing signs, recommendations from a friend, communications from professor/faculty, or Facebook as channels for hearing about the program • Qualitative feedback suggests professor/faculty recommendations may carry some weight in the future to garner broader participation across concentrations • All Sargent students report hearing about the program from a professor/faculty member. • Nutrition students used the experience as their community rotation, so they heard of the placement through the faculty in charge of organizing rotations • They note this individual as a powerful communication tool within the school • SSW students heard about the program through email • Qualitative feedback suggests word-of-mouth or professor recommendations might be a strong communication channel to capitalize on in the future

19. Regardless of How Participants Heard About the Opportunity, Most Note Details were Vague • Almost all those interviewed mentioned they had no idea what to expect when the signed up. • Most note the orientation dinner helped set some expectations • All would have liked more clarity on what the goals of the week would be, what skills would be taught, and what the end product would be. • Most felt this would have put them more at ease going into the week • Some would have liked to better evaluate whether or not to participate • Some feel their colleagues may have been discouraged from participating due to this lack of transparency.

20. Main Drivers to Participation were Similar Across Schools. Most frequently mentioned drivers: Working in Interdisciplinary teams Ability to Engage with the Community engagement Chance to Learn and practice new skills Gaining a Hands on, Real-world experience Participation

21. For Nutrition Students, Earning Class Credit Was an Additional Incentive to Participate Most frequently mentioned drivers: Working in Interdisciplinary teams Ability to Engage with the Community engagement Chance to Learn and practice new skills Gaining a Hands on, Real-world experience Participation Drivers that were often inferred should also be considered Availability/ Convenience (for Nutrition) Class Credit

22. Potential Barriers Often Surround Scheduling Conflicts or Competing Priorities Most frequently mentioned drivers: Working in Interdisciplinary teams Ability to Engage with the Community engagement Chance to Learn and practice new skills Gaining a Hands on, Real-world experience Participation • Potential Barriers: • Lack of transparency: Invitations not clear on what the week entails • Already having plans for Spring Break (invites sent too late) • Wanting a chance to rest over Spring Break Availability/ Convenience (for Nutrition) Class Credit Drivers that were often inferred

23. Some of These Barriers May Have Limited Greater Participation, Particularly Among SSW and Sargent. • Qualitative feedback suggests many felt the invitations lacked transparency. • Many feel this limited participation across schools • Particularly for SSW and Sargent students who have no experience with the Practice Office, this may have made some wary of participating • Scheduling conflicts were often mentioned by SSW and Sargent students. • SSW and Sargent students have regimented rotations, and often have to make their schedules far in advance. • An interview with an SSW student revealed many of her colleagues had already planned to stay at their placements over Spring Break • Even SPH students mention the invitation came a late, likely limiting participation from those who had already made plans to go home or on vacation for Spring Break.

24. Satisfaction

25. Overall, participants were satisfied with the program • Post-program surveys suggest participants were moderately to strongly satisfied (ratings out of 5, where 5 = strongly satisfied; mean = 4.15, SD = 0.70, mode = 4, range: 3-5) • Qualitative feedback confirms the experience was overwhelming positive • Many felt it was a fulfilling and meaningful way to spend their spring break • All were excited about the prospect of future programming with the community center

26. Yet, feedback reveals some areas of dissatisfaction with areas of the program • Most students interviewed were dissatisfied with the level of background information provided on Monday. • Many felt it took time away from the workshops and community engagement aspects • Some suggested this is knowledge a student should already have • Others suggest the background information should have been learned prior (at meetings prior to the week, available online, or assigned reading material) • Students with prior experience in community assessment had hoped to delve deeper. • Many wanted more time with community, as this was a particularly satisfying aspect. • Some felt their final products were missing critical information • Students in Sargent often reflected that their skill sets were not fully utilized, leading to some disappointment.

27. Knowledge and Skills

28. Results Suggest Increases in Perceived Knowledge due to the Program Not at all prepared Neutral Extremely prepared

29. Results Suggest Increases in Perceived Skills due to the Program Not at all prepared Neutral Extremely prepared

30. Program Value

31. The Program Compliments the Educational Experience for Students • On average, students feel the program added to their degree program • SPH students report feeling it was a chance to practice outside the classroom • SSW and Sargent saw real value in seeing a different way to approach problems they deal with in their rotations “It was positive, I think I took more away from it than I thought I would in terms of getting to know the South End community a little bit better.” – SSW, Clinical Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Neutral

32. Participants Agree the Program is Applicable and Would Recommend to a Friend • While the average reveals participants agree with the applicability of the program… • Interviews suggest the program may not have been as applicable for Sargent students • Interviews suggest students would be more likely to recommend this experience if there were minor changes in scheduling and greater communication regarding goals. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Neutral

33. Participants Agree the Program is Applicable and Would Recommend to a Friend • Interviews reveal students had few expectations going into the program • Many report they were left “wanting more” from the experience • Some felt there should have been more emphasis and effort on the survey design Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Neutral

34. Strengths & Areas for Improvement

35. Participants Often Identified Common Program Strengths. • These strengths appear to be a major contributor to overall satisfaction with the program • Many feel any future programming should include and build upon these key strengths “Working with the different schools was such a great exposure to aspects of health promotion I would not have known.” – Sargent, PT “I think showing us instead of telling us what is going on in a community is a huge strength.” – Sargent, Nutrition

36. Yet Many Feel there is Room for Improvement in Some Aspects of the Program “Some of the material presented came from an almost exclusive public health point of view, which weakened the interdisciplinary approach--which is otherwise a strength.” Sargent, PT

37. Yet Many Feel there is Room for Improvement in Some Aspects of the Program “It might be valuable to conduct an initial poll to gauge how much background information is needed for future challenges. I feel that more time could have been freed up to do more community engagement and final project work” – Sargent, PT

38. Post-Program Surveys Suggest Strengths as Well as Areas for Improvement • In addition, qualitative feedback suggests the workshops were valuable. • Some request more workshop time as a substitution for some of the background on Monday • Many found the binders helpful. • Some feel it could have been used to provide more background in lieu of some Monday content • Many enjoyed the opportunity to “re-teach” what they learned in workshop to their colleagues. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Neutral

39. Post-Program Surveys Suggest Strengths as Well as Areas for Improvement • Feedback suggests participants would have liked more clarification on the week’s objectives. • Qualitative feedback supports that many were unsure what the final product was supposed to be • Many felt more time could have been set aside for analysis and reporting. • Interviews support this result. Some feel their products could have been more polished “I would have liked to have more instruction on survey design because that was the focus of this activity and I did not feel like I had the tools necessary to complete that task” – SPH, EPI Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

40. Differences in Experience by School & Concentration

41. There may be differences in overall experience by school

42. The Bigger Picture

43. Spring Break Challenge was Designed to Address Four Spotlight Objectives

44. Survey Results Show the Program Provided a Real-World, Interdisciplinary Experience • Feedback suggests this was one of the major take-aways from the program • Inter-professional collaboration was one of the most frequently listed strengths of the program Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Neutral

45. Yet, Many Felt there Could Have been more Community Engagement…

46. …and Most Note the Topic of Obesity was not Emphasized

47. Spring Break Challenge: Next Steps • Qualitative feedback suggests many felt the invitations lacked transparency. • Many feel this limited participation across schools • Particularly for SSW and Sargent students who have no experience with the Practice Office, this may have made some wary of participating • Scheduling conflicts were often mentioned by SSW and Sargent students. • SSW and Sargent students have regimented rotations, and often have to make their schedules far in advance. • An interview with an SSW student revealed many of her colleagues had already planned to stay at their placements over Spring Break • Even SPH students mention the invitation came a late, likely limiting participation from those who had already made plans to go home or on vacation for Spring Break.

48. Spring Break Challenge: Next Steps • Student interviews reveal a chance for re-framing • Frequently suggest future tasks focus beyond the use of FitWell • Focus instead on drivers and barriers to obesity in thecommunity • Many mention it felt too narrow, too early • Student recommendations for next steps include: • Creating programming that will encourage individuals to visit the center • Organizing communications campaigns and outdoor activitiesto increase visibility • Assisting BCC in becoming a center for advocacy within the community to address barriers to eating right and staying fit • Setting clear time tables and milestones to maintain momentum and excitement.