Common use of Limitations and Delimitations Clause in Contracts

Limitations and Delimitations. Due to time and human resource constraints, there were several limitations to this program assessment. First, the curriculum was not delivered on the intended bi-monthly schedule, and instead was condensed into a three-week workshop. This may have contributed to participant fatigue that may have influenced participant engagement in some sessions. Again, due to limited time, we were unable to pilot the final session of the curriculum and as such no data was collected for the acceptability or improvement of this session. The first curriculum session was piloted among mothers from Cohort 2 only. Because of this variation in population and methodology, assessment data from this session was excluded from this analysis. Under ideal circumstances, each session would have had a designated facilitator from SWEAT staff so that they could familiarize themselves with the preparation and delivery of the curriculum materials, in addition to an external observer to record detailed notes on the timing of activities, challenges and topics generating the most interest. However, because members of the Mothers for the Future team had to complete their regularly scheduled responsibilities in addition to attending the workshop, this was not possible. As a solution to these constraints, I functioned as the primary facilitator, interviewer, focus group moderator, and survey administrator. My dual roles in workshop facilitation and data collection may have influenced participants to respond to questions more favorably. My position as an outsider to the community may have further influenced participants’ behaviors throughout the workshop or responses elicited through data collection. Because the Mothers for the Future team thought it would be beneficial for mothers from both the “core group” and Cohort 2 to participate in the assessment, the group size was also larger than had been anticipated when the sessions were developed. This may have, at times, impacted the ability of all participants to fully engage during all sessions and therefore effectiveness of the activities. Additionally, the larger group may have created unanticipated challenges to completing certain activities that may not have occurred under ideal circumstances. CHAPTER 4: RESULTS Program participants provided feedback on the curriculum across various data sources (focus group discussions, open-ended survey responses, and as described through facilitator field notes). Findings are presented below in two sections that aim to 1) describe the overarching experiences of mothers participating in the Mothers for the Future program, and 2) evaluate curriculum content areas and processes to generate recommendations for program improvement.

Limitations and Delimitations. Due to time and human resource constraints, there were This study contains several limitations to this program assessmentforms of sample bias. First, the curriculum was not delivered on study utilizes responses from APIC members, as it is comprised mainly of infection control professionals. However, the intended bi-monthly schedulemembers are a sample of convenience, and instead was condensed into are not necessarily representative of all infection control professionals. Second, although the study included information on participants’ facility, the survey collected data at an individual level. Therefore, it is possible that multiple individuals from the same institution completed the survey, causing an oversampling that could affect the analysis. The latter point is also a threelimitation in the study design. In order to ensure no identifiers, i.e., personal or institutional, were captured, the study design focused on an anonymous, individual level survey in lieu of a facility-week workshopbased survey. The potential for social desirability bias exists in this study as well. A majority of participants indicated that they were aware of CDC HICPAC guidelines, which could be an over- exaggeration as infection control practitioners may be embarrassed to admit they had no knowledge of the CDC HICAPC guidelines. Further, the survey contained a link to both the CDC HICPAC guidelines and the norovirus prevention toolkit, as a means to promote and improve their knowledge. This may have contributed to participant fatigue the large proportion of participants that may have influenced participant engagement in some sessions. Again, due to limited time, we were unable to pilot the final session aware of the curriculum and as such no data was collected for the acceptability or improvement of this session. The first curriculum session was piloted among mothers from Cohort 2 only. Because of this variation in population and methodology, assessment data from this session was excluded from this analysis. Under ideal circumstances, each session would have had a designated facilitator from SWEAT staff so that they could familiarize themselves with the preparation and delivery of the curriculum materials, in addition to an external observer to record detailed notes on the timing of activities, challenges and topics generating the most interestCDC HICPAC guidelines. However, because members if that is the case, then the awareness of the Mothers norovirus prevention toolkit may be considerably less than reported. The survey response rate for this study was low (5.4%). The survey distribution coincided with the Future team had to complete their regularly scheduled responsibilities in addition to attending the workshopAPIC annual conference, this was not possible. As a solution to these constraints, I functioned as the primary facilitator, interviewer, focus group moderator, and survey administrator. My dual roles in workshop facilitation and data collection which may have influenced participants to respond to questions more favorably. My position as an outsider to affected the community may have further influenced participants’ behaviors throughout the workshop or responses elicited through data collection. Because the Mothers for the Future team thought it would be beneficial for mothers from both the “core group” and Cohort 2 to participate in the assessment, the group size was also larger than had been anticipated when the sessions were developed. This may have, at times, impacted the ability of all participants to fully engage during all sessions and therefore effectiveness of the activitiesresponse rate. Additionally, the larger group may survey fatigue could have created unanticipated challenges to completing certain activities that may not have occurred under ideal circumstances. CHAPTER 4: RESULTS Program participants provided feedback an effect on the curriculum across various data sources response rate since APIC members are utilized quite frequently for surveys. However, response rates from other surveys that utilize similar populations, i.e., APIC members, have comparable response rates (focus group discussionsAllegranzi et al., open-ended 2014; ▇▇▇▇ et al., 2014; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2012), suggesting this is a typical response rate. Improvement of the survey tool could better elicit responses and analysis of results. For example, skip logic directed respondents that selected “Other” as a facility to question 2 to complete the number of beds their institution contained. Some facilities, such as public health departments, should have been exempt from completing this question. To alleviate confusion in responses, a “Not Applicable” response should have been included. In addition, questions 17 and as described through facilitator field notes)19 make certain assumptions that a facility only implemented the listed recommendations. Findings are presented below in two sections that aim to 1) describe the overarching experiences of mothers participating Including a “None” and “Other (fill in the Mothers blank)” responses for the Future program, and 2) evaluate curriculum content areas and processes to generate recommendations for program improvementthese questions could remove those assumptions.