>> Introduction to
experiential evidence.
Experiential evidence is
the collective experience
and expertise of those who
have practiced or lived
in a particular setting.
It also includes the knowledge
of subject matter experts.
These insights, understandings,
skills and expertise are
accumulated over time
and is often referred to as
intuitive or tacit knowledge.
>> I think it's bringing
people in that, you know,
have seen stuff, have
experienced stuff,
who've maybe worked
in a capacity
where they've seen a lot of, you
know, things happen and bring
in people that can
serve as resources.
>> Experiential evidence may
help to provide information
on some of the same
factors addressed
by contextual evidence including
acceptability, feasibility
and utility of a
prevention strategy.
However, experiential evidence
provides distinctive guidance
in the form of real
world experience gathered
from multiple stakeholders who
are familiar with a variety
of key aspects about the
setting and have knowledge
about the norms and
values of the community
in which a prevention
strategy is to be implemented.
While best available
research evidence
and contextual evidence can be
drawn from existing data sources
as well as new sources of data
and applied to a decision,
experiential evidence
must be intentionally
and systematically elicited
from a diverse array
of key stakeholders in response
to a particular decision
making situation.
Systematically gathering
experiential evidence can help
to answer the following
questions:
What can the experiences
and knowledge
of stakeholders tell us about
what has previously worked
or not worked with
the specific community
and population in question?
What can the experiences
and knowledge
of stakeholders tell us
about a program, practice,
or policy's possible appeal to
stakeholders and participants?
What common goals do
the stakeholders have
around this issue?
What do the experiences
and knowledge
of stakeholders tell us about
how well matched those goals are
to the programs,
practices, or policies based
on the best available
research evidence?
[typing sounds] Early on in
the decision making process,
parts of the interagency work
group meetings were committed
to interactive activities
led by a facilitator.
This helped to identify
a common understanding
of the issue they addressed and
a consensus about the direction
that they need to take.
One example was an exercise in
which the participants wrote
on large cards the problems
that faced families, children,
and youth in the community.
They were asked to visualize the
problems and write down a three
to five word statement
on the cards
about the problems
that they visualized.
The common problems
were clustered together.
Once these clusters
were identified,
those that had the
most cards stood
out as the groups
primary concerns.
The group also listed
out the things
in their community they saw
as assets for prevention.
The differences between
perceived concerns and strengths
of the group and local data
findings were discussed
and the priorities for the
work group were identified.
One of the first tasks of
the interagency work group
on youth suicide prevention in
our case study community was
to identify who was at the table
and who was not but should be.
The local public health
office, mental health,
the local school system, and
juvenile justice were part
of the work group
from the start.
Participation from this
diverse cross section of leaders
from local government and youth
serving organizations was an
indication of interest
and commitment
for bringing a youth
suicide prevention program
to the community.
However, one of the first
goals of the work group was
to engage representatives
from other important
sectors including healthcare,
substance abuse treatment and
faith-based organizations.
Another challenge was to keep
the work group small enough
to be effective, yet still
have it represent the
broader community.
To gather additional information
and engage the community
in support of this
effort, representatives
of the interagency
work group presented
to the community violence
prevention strategies identified
through their search of the best
available research evidence.
The best available research
evidence was reviewed
and attendees were given a
chance to reflect on the issues
that most concerned them
as community members.
Participants were put into small
groups to review a synthesis
of the best available research
evidence on each model.
As a whole group, each
smaller group reported
on how well they
thought the programs
from the research evidence fit
with the local community based
on their knowledge
and experience
as those most familiar
with the community.
The dialogue that resulted
was carefully documented
and distributed to
the work group.