Date post: | 05-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | man-dejelo |
View: | 601 times |
Download: | 2 times |
EVALUATION IN HEALTH
PROMOTION
Karen Leslie L. Pineda, RND, MSPHKaren Leslie L. Pineda, RND, MSPH
PLANNING PARADIGMPLANNING PARADIGMJ Thomas Butler, 2000J Thomas Butler, 2000
Implementation
Development of program plan• Goals & objectives•Policy formulation•Methods & techniques•Implementation plans•Evaluation plans
Evaluation
Needs Assessment• Analysis of population• Determination of health problems• Prioritizing needs
Evaluation Needed to assess results,
determine whether objectives have been met and find out if the methods used were appropriate and efficient.
Findings can then be fed back into the planning process in order to progress practice
About identifying values or criteria which will be used to determine success
Naidoo & Wills, 2009Naidoo & Wills, 2009
“…implies judgment based on careful assessment and critical appraisal of given situations, which should lead to drawing sensible conclusions and making useful proposals for future action.”
WHO, 1981WHO, 1981
Evaluation
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION Effectiveness – the extent to which
aims and objectives are met.
Appropriateness – the relevance of the intervention to needs.
Acceptability – whether it is carried out in a sensitive way.
Efficiency – whether time, money and resources are well spent, given the benefits.
Equity – equal provisions for equal need.. Naidoo & Wills, 2009Naidoo & Wills, 2009
Identifies effective health promotion practices which others can adopt.
Naidoo & Wills, 2009Naidoo & Wills, 2009
Evaluation
Reasons for evaluation: the three Es
To assess what has been achieved – did an intervention have its intended effects? (Efficiency)
To measure its impact and whether it was worthwhile (Effectiveness)
To judge its cost-effectiveness and whether the time, money and labor were well-spent (Economy)
- To inform future plans
- To justify decisions to others.
Naidoo & Wills, 2009Naidoo & Wills, 2009
PROCESS, IMPACT
&
OUTCOME
EVALUATION SCHEMES
Process Evaluation Formative or illuminative
evaluation
Concerned with assessing the process of programme implementation
Addresses participants perceptions and reactions to health promotion interventions, and identifies the factors which support or impede these activities Naidoo & Wills, 2009Naidoo & Wills, 2009
Impact Evaluation Impact – the immediate effects
such as increased knowledge or shifts in attitude
tends to be the most popular choice, as it is the easier to do
can be built into a programme as the end stage
Naidoo & Wills, 2009Naidoo & Wills, 2009
Outcome Evaluation Outcome – the longer-term
effects such as changes in lifestyle.
More difficult as it involves an assessment of longer-term effects
More complex and costly
Often the preferred evaluation method as it measures sustained changes that have stood the test of time
Naidoo & Wills, 2009Naidoo & Wills, 2009
Health Promotion Program
Smoking Reduction
Health Promotion Objectives For Smoking Reduction
Increased knowledge, e.g. harmful effects of passive smoking
Changes in attitudes, e.g. less willingness to breathe in others’ smoke
Changes in behavior, e.g. stopping smoking
Acquiring new skills, e.g. learning relaxation methods to reduce stress
Naidoo & Wills, 2009Naidoo & Wills, 2009
Introduction of healthy policies, e.g. funding to enable GPs to prescribe nicotine replacement aids for people on low income
Modifying the environment, e.g. banning tobacco advertising and promotion, workplace no-smoking policies
Reduction in risk factors, e.g. reduction in number of smokers and amount of tobacco smoked per person
Increased use of services, e.g. take-up rates for smoking cessation clinics, number of calls made to quit smoking telephone help lines
Reduced morbidity, e.g. reduced rates of respiratory illness and coronary heart disease
Reduced mortality, e.g. reduced mortality from lung cancer
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
& GOOD DAY!