ARCHIVED - Summative Evaluation of the Blood Safety Contribution Program - Final Report


III. Summative Evaluation

Strengths and limitations

It is important to clearly understand both the strengths and limitation associated with the evaluation in order to contextualize findings and ensure that they are not weighted more heavily than would be appropriate under the circumstances. The following provides a summary of evaluation-related strengths and limitations:

  • Documentation of the BSCP program was extensive. This provided a reasonably reliable, detailed source of information for the evaluation. A primary strength of documentation is that it does not rely on human memory and can, therefore, be more accurate than other sources, such as interviews, in some instances.
  • Participation rates for both the survey and interviews were excellent, so these methods captured a wide range of roles and perspectives.
  • A combination of both subjective and objective evidence about the state of the components and the program outcomes was considered and integrated as appropriate in order to provide more comprehensive answers to each of the evaluation questions.


  • A key limitation of the evaluation report is that, despite repeated attempts, we were unable to interview a representative from the BSCP-funded Blood Borne Pathogens Surveillance Project. Because documentation about this project was limited, such an interview would have been able to provide important information about the development and use of the blood sample archive for high risk populations that could not be obtained from any other source. Accordingly, information about this archive is somewhat sparse.
  • The survey and interview data reflect the opinions of a subset of the program’s target audiences. Those target audiences who were most closely involved (e.g., funding recipients, staff and managers, working group members) are well-represented, providing a comprehensive understanding of the program from people with different roles and diverse perspectives. However, the views of other target audiences, such as those who provide data at the site level, those more distant groups who might use the information, and other interested parties such as academics or the general public, are not covered.
  • There was limited information about similar programs in other jurisdictions, for comparison purposes. This made it difficult to comment on the relative efficiency of Canada’s program.
  • There was limited involvement in the evaluation from the international community. More extensive involvement would have provided an important perspective and thus enable consideration of the Canadian system within the international context.
Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: