"Smallball" evaluation: a prescription for studying community-based information interventions.

Area of Science:

• Community Health Informatics
• Program Evaluation
• Health Services Research

Background:

• Community-based informational interventions require tailored evaluation methods.
• Traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may not be suitable for assessing these interventions throughout their lifecycle.
• The "powerball" approach (late-stage RCTs) contrasts with the proposed "smallball" approach (lifecycle evaluation).

Purpose of the Study:

• To advocate for the superiority of "smallball" evaluation studies over "powerball" studies for community-based informational interventions.
• To highlight the advantages of lifecycle evaluations in understanding intervention effectiveness within real-world community settings.
• To challenge the prevailing view that only "powerball" studies offer legitimate evaluation outcomes.

Main Methods:

• Comparative analysis of "smallball" (lifecycle) and "powerball" (late-stage RCT) evaluation strategies.
• Utilizing analogies from baseball (smallball vs. powerball) to frame the methodological discussion.
• Emphasizing the unique characteristics of community-based interventions and their implications for evaluation design.

Main Results:

• "Smallball" evaluations ensure information resources meet community needs prior to development.
• "Smallball" assessments confirm system suitability for user capabilities and community constraints during deployment.
• "Smallball" studies facilitate learning about intervention effects in real-world environments where RCTs are often infeasible.

Conclusions:

• "Smallball" evaluation studies offer significant advantages for community-based informational interventions.
• The findings support a shift in perspective, favoring lifecycle evaluations over traditional late-stage randomized trials.
• Revised expectations in informatics should prioritize "smallball" approaches for more informative and practical evaluation outcomes.