1. Evaluating health promotion programs
400210

2. Important Copyright Notice for Western Sydney University Students
The material in this presentation has been made available to you by and on behalf of Western Sydney University for your personal use and study only.
The material contained in this presentation is subject to copyright protection.
You may not make any further copies and share the recorded lectures in whole or in part by any hardcopy, digital and or online technologies.

3. Evaluation
Provides information as to whether the intervention has met aims and objectives of the program
Assesses whether objectives have been met and if methods used in the program were appropriate and efficient (Naidoo & Wills, 2009, p. 288).
Should include health promotion principles, for example, equity and community participation
(Naidoo & Wills, 2009)
Evaluation methods and processes must be included in the planning phase of the programme development.

4. Process, impact and outcome evaluation.
Process evaluation – assesses the process of programme implementation.
Impact evaluation measures immediate outcomes of the programme
Outcome evaluation measure long-term outcomes of the programme
Both impact and outcome assess the outcomes of the interventions, that is, the effects of the programme
(Naidoo & Wills, 2009)

5. Process evaluation 4 questions need to be asked:
Gains the perspective of participants, practitioners, stakeholders, including funding bodies (Important to obtain funding for future projects).
The aim of process evaluation is to assess whether or not the programme in its current form can be repeated, or whether it need modification.
4 questions need to be asked:
Whether the programme reached the intended target group (programme reach)
Were participants satisfied with the programme? (programme acceptability)
Were all activities incorporated? (programme integrity)
Whether the resources and components of the programme were of good quality (programme integrity)
(Hawe, Degeling & Hall, 1994; Nutbeam, 1998, as cited in Naidoo & Wills, 2009)

6. Methods of process evaluation:
Interviews
Diaries
Observations
Content analysis of documents
Not scientific
However, it is necessary to determine:
how community groups responded to the programme
Whether the programme promoted health
(Naidoo & Wills, 2009)

7. Impact evaluation
Impact evaluation, or the immediate effects, which include an increased knowledge or change in attitude.
This form of evaluation can be incorporated into the final stage of programme planning.
For example, at the end of the health promotion programme, include a session to review the programme.
For example: participant’s improved knowledge base of potential risk factors (related to focus of the programme); and increases motivation to be involved in risk factor screening.
(Naidoo & Wills, 2009)

8. Outcome evaluation
Outcome evaluation, longer-term effects, which may be assessed by a change in lifestyle of participants
Can evaluate change in behaviour over a longer time frame, for example, a year, although, use of a control group would provide more reliable results
It is more complex and includes more time and resources
More useful, as it measures whether the changes can be sustained over time
Numerical data is usually used, which is considered more reliable (same applies to impact evaluation)
(Naidoo & Wills, 2009)

9. Additional resources:
Agency for Clinical Innovation.(2013). Understanding program evaluation: An ICA framework. New South Wales Health. Retrieved from k-Program-Evaluation.pdf
NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation. (2017). Resources. NSW Health.
Retrieved from

10. References:
Naidoo, J., & Wills, J. (2009). Foundations of health promotion (3rd ed.). London: Bailliere Tindall.