The basic ideas behind contribution analysis were set out in 2001. Since then, interest in the approach has grown and contribution analysis has been opera tionalized in different ways. In addition, several reviews of the approach have been published and raise a few concerns. In this article, I clarify several of the key concepts behind contribution analysis, including contributory causes and contribution claims. I discuss the need for reasonably robust theories of change and the use of nested theories of change to unpack complex settings. On contribution claims, I argue the need for causal narratives to arrive at credible claims, the limited role that external causal factors play in arriving at contribution claims, the use of robust theories of change to avoid bias, and the fact that opinions of stakeholders on the contribution made are not central in arriving at contribution claims.

Background: Cultural competency is an important but under-adopted skill among professional evaluators. Yet in the transactions around job seeking and hiring in evaluation, cultural competency is a practical and common concept. How cultural competency gets communicated in those transactions may provide insights for the field.   Purpose: The purpose of this article is to identify ways job seekers and employers discuss cultural competency in order to move toward a more widely accepted way of operationalizing the concept.   Setting: The American Evaluation Association’s (AEA) Career Center Webpage.   Intervention: Not applicable.   Research Design: A nonexperimental design was used in the study. Data Collection and Analysis: Document review was the main form of data collection, where resumes and job postings on AEA’s webpage were systematically collected. They were then rated by the two study authors on cultural competency and interrater reliabilities were calculated. Content analysis was also used to identify themes in ways through which cultural competency is expressed or communicated in the documents.   Findings: Indicators of cultural competency are identified, in the context of employment seeking. The study also highlights the conditions which may have contributed to low interrater reliabilities and a larger need to develop a practical, operationalized definition of cultural competency, despite inherent flaws.   Keywords: cultural competency; evaluator competencies

Introduction:The Canterbury Primary Response Group (CPRG) was formed following the threats of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza worldwide. The possible impact of these viruses alerted health care professionals that a community-wide approach was needed to manage and coordinate a response to any outbreak or potential outbreak. In Canterbury, New Zealand, the CPRG group took the responsibility to coordinate and manage the regional, out of hospital, planning and response coordination to annual influenza threats and the possible escalation to pandemic outbreaks.Aim:To outline the formation of a primary health and community-wide planning group, bringing together not only a wide range of health providers, but also key community agencies to plan strategies and responses to seasonal influenza and possible pandemic outbreaks.Methods:CPRG has developed a Pandemic Plan that focuses on the processes, structures, and roles to support and coordinate general practice, community pharmacies, community nursing, and other primary health care providers in the reduction of, readiness for, response to, and recovery from an influenza pandemic. The plan could reasonably apply to other respiratory-type pandemics such as SARS.Results:A comprehensive group of health professionals and supporting agencies meet monthly (more often if required) under the chair of CPRG to share information of the influenza-like illness (ILI) situation, virus types, and spread, as well as support strategies and response activities. Regular communication information updates are produced and circulated amongst members and primary health providers in the region.Discussion:Given that most ILI health consultations and treatments are self or primary health administered and take place outside of hospital services, it is essential for providers to be informed and consistent with their responses and knowledge of the extent and symptoms of ILI and any likelihood of a pandemic.

Introduction: When disasters happen, people experience broad environmental, physical, and psychosocial effects that can last for years. Researchers continue to focus on the acute physical injuries and aspects of patient care without considering the person as a whole. People who experience disasters also experience acute injury, exacerbations of chronic disease, mental and physical health effects, effects on social determinants of health, disruption to usual preventative care, and local community ripple effects. Researchers tend to look at these aspects of care separately, yet an individual can experience them all at once. The focus needs to change to address all the healthcare needs of an individual, rather than the likely needs of groups. Mental and physical care should not be separated, nor the determinants of health. The person, not the population, should be at the center of care. Primary care, poorly integrated into disaster management, can provide that focus with a "business as usual" mindset. This requires comprehensive, holistic coordination of care for people and families in the context of their local community. Aim: To examine how Family Doctors (FDs) actually contribute to disaster response. Methods: Thirty-seven disaster-experienced FDs were interviewed about how they contributed to response and recovery when disasters struck their communities. Results: FDs reported being guided by the usual evidencebased care characteristics of primary practice. The majority provided holistic comprehensive medical care and did not feel they needed many extra clinical training or skills. However, they did wish to understand the systems of disaster management, where they fit in, and their link to the broader disaster response. Discussion: The contribution of FDs to healthcare systems brings strengths of preventative care, early intervention, and ongoing local surveillance by a central, coordinating, and trusted health professional. There is no reason to not include disaster management in primary care.