Skip to main content

Table 1 Peer engagement process evaluation framework

From: Peer engagement in harm reduction strategies and services: a critical case study and evaluation framework from British Columbia, Canada

Goal Assessment Description Examples of constructs
Supportive Environment How were barriers and facilitators to engaging addressed? Assess and address barriers and facilitators of engagement; ‘environment’ encompasses micro (i.e. power dynamics between individuals), meso (ie. organizing transportation to/from), and macro levels (i.e. meeting location). • Easy access/low threshold meetings (immediate compensation, supportive arrangements for people travelling from out of town by paying transportation costs in advance)
• Community building activities
• Building, location chosen
• Planning in advance
• Flexible schedule
Equitable participation How were experiences represented and respected? Ensure all experiences respected and represented at the table to address the diverse and unique health needs of each community. • Democratic participation
• Power dynamics
• Flexible facilitation
• Distribution of voices
• Representativeness at the table
• Awareness of peer issues and strengths within the community
Capacity building & empowerment How did capacity increase over time and how were benefits derived? Develop the abilities of individuals and groups defined in terms of access, ability, mobilization, interest, networks, opportunity, and literacy. • Skills and ability
• Confidence
• Ongoing engagement or attrition
• Social capital
• Community building
• Enhanced peer networks
• Cohesion
Improved programming
& policy
How engagement impacts programming and policy? The explicit and implicit evolution of programming and/or policy in relation to the purpose identified; ability to understand local risk environment, synthesize information, and design relevant solutions. • Programming and/or policy
• Competency
• Activities
• Outputs
• Feedback from within and/or outside the inner and/or broader community