Evaluation of the Implementation and Policy Directions of the Training and Research in Urban Disease Control Program, 2021-2030: A Midterm Assessment

Abstract

This study employed a mixed-methods research design to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Training and Research in Urban Disease Control Program, 2021–2030, at its midterm stage. The study also aimed to generate baseline evidence for reviewing the program and formulating future operational directions and policy recommendations to support the achievement of the program’s long-term objectives during the remaining implementation period. Data were collected from secondary sources, including relevant documents and supporting evidence, as well as through in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. The evaluation was conducted under the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) framework and applied the Context, Input, Process, and Product (CIPP) Evaluation Model developed by Stufflebeam. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, and means, while qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis based on the characteristics of information obtained from each target group and the interview guidelines. The findings revealed that, in terms of Context (C), the Training and Research in Urban Disease Control Program, 2021–2030, during its first half, was well aligned with the National Strategy for Disease Prevention and Health Threat Control (2017–2036), particularly Strategy 5 on workforce development for disease prevention and health threat control, which aims to strengthen the competencies and capabilities of public health personnel. The program was also consistent with the Second Phase of the 20-Year National Action Plan for Disease Prevention and Health Threat Control (2018–2037), especially Strategy 3 on research, innovation, and knowledge management development and Strategy 5 on workforce development, both of which constitute the core foundation of the program. Regarding Input (I), the program demonstrated adequate readiness in terms of human resources, budget allocation, knowledge resources, and technological support. However, several management-related issues were identified and require further improvement. In terms of Process (P), the program was developed and implemented through a participatory planning approach. The strategic plan was communicated to relevant personnel through curriculum committee forums, and implementation was systematically driven in collaboration with the Urban Disease Prevention and Control Foundation. Nevertheless, mechanisms for internal and external monitoring and evaluation remained insufficient. With respect to Product (P), all six projects under the program established a total of ten key performance indicators. Overall, substantial progress was observed, and the effectiveness of implementation could be assessed through most indicators. However, several indicators had not yet achieved their intended targets or lacked sufficient progress in monitoring and evaluation during the midterm period. The policy recommendations derived from this study will be utilized to strengthen implementation strategies during the second half of the program period, thereby enhancing the likelihood of achieving the program’s objectives and ensuring sustainable outcomes for the Training and Research in Urban Disease Control Program, 2021-2030.