Sentence examples for evaluation time frame from inspiring English sources

Furthermore, the HEHA goals of improving nutrition, increasing physical activity and reducing obesity are long-term and may not be achieved within the evaluation time frame.

Feasibility was defined as the ability to deliver at least 60% of the planned three times weekly yoga sessions over the evaluation time frame in at least 70% of participants.

Evaluations from the Global Environment Fund GEFF) examined progress from outcomes to impact, usually in the face of sparse data, in particular country program objectives and indicators and national statistics on environmental indicators and data series over the 20 or so years of a typical evaluation time frame.

To complete a cycle of planning, analysis, intervention, and evaluation, time frames must span one or preferably two decades, appropriate for economic discounting and forecasting, climate and other ecologic changes, and socio-cultural trends.

However, with at least 30 published studies providing evidence that a wide variety of smoking-cessation interventions are cost effective, these findings may be less favourable because most studies have overestimated long-term effectiveness due to assumptions made with smoking relapse rates or evaluation time frames being too short[ 30].

Five years was used as the evaluation time-frame as several studies have demonstrated that that majority of presentations will be published within five years of the meeting date (Bhandari et al. 2002; Hamlet et al. 1997).

Investing in multidisciplinary collaboration and capacity building for complex evaluation, especially among local partners, often required more time and focus than the evaluation study time frame and budget allowed; rectifying this imbalance will require evaluation commissioners to develop more realistic budgets and timelines, preferably done in partnership with evaluators.

Criteria for sample selection will necessitate evaluation of the time frame of exposure captured by the measurement in relationship to critical windows of susceptibility, the cost and validity of the measurements, participant burden, and variability in exposure routes across populations and at different age periods.

Ideally we would have liked to audio record more interviews, but as with many service evaluations the short time frame made this difficult.

First, we suggest conducting studies with larger experimental group size, and evaluation over a greater time frame.

If the intervention is found to be not cost-effective at 12 months, then evaluation over a longer time frame may be considered.