Project analysts assign ratings in the three areas below. Numerous additional considerations, such as cost, magnitude of effect, and ease of implementation are often of interest to decision makers, but are less easily rated with available research. Information in these areas is included in each strategy’s ‘Evidence of Effectiveness’ summary when available.
Each reviewed strategy is assigned an evidence rating based on the quantity, quality, and findings of relevant research. When assigning ratings, we place the most weight on studies with designs that demonstrate causality; we consider study quality in conjunction with design. Ratings include:
This rating estimates the portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).
Project analysts assess each strategy’s likely effect on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities. Strategies are rated:
Strategies that are likely to reduce differences in health-related outcomes (i.e., close a gap) are rated ‘Likely to decrease disparities,’ while strategies likely to exacerbate differences are rated ‘Likely to increase disparities.’ Strategies that generally benefit entire populations are rated ‘No impact on disparities likely.’
These ratings reflect usual use of a strategy as presented in relevant literature. However, choosing to implement a strategy in a targeted way can alter its likely impact on disparities. Targeting efforts to those with the greatest need, for example, can make a strategy rated ‘no impact on disparities likely’ likely to decrease disparities in your community.