Designing and Evaluating Health Promotion Programs
Health improvement planning models exist to support strategic management of health improvement efforts and to guide program administrators in taking a comprehensive approach to health promotion planning from problem identification to program evaluation and diffusion. This article outlines a model which follows four simple steps to program design and four simple steps to program evaluation.
The first phase is characterized as the 4-Ss of program design, which includes size, scope, scalability, and sustainability.
The second phase is characterized as the penetration, implementation, participation and effectiveness (PIPE) Impact Metric. Penetration refers to the proportion of the target population that is reached with invitations to engage in the program or intervention. Implementation refers to the degree to which the program has been implemented according to the design specifications and the associated work plans. Participation refers to the proportion of invited individuals who enroll in the program according to program protocol. Effectiveness refers to the rate of successful participants. It is considered in the context of programming conducted in the real-world setting. The product of all elements of the PIPE Impact Metric can be calculated to represent the impact from a program administration perspective, while the product of participation and effectiveness can be calculated to represent the impact of the program from a user/consumer perspective.
The model is designed to inform program administrators about opportunities for improvement. First, administrative impact can be compared with user/consumer impact. Secondly, the PIPE Impact Metric total score, as well as its individual subscores, should be considered in the context of the 4-Ss of program design.
This model has been derived from work conducted in the applied setting, however it is based on scientific theory and appears congruent with findings from existing, but more complicated, models. The results of the application of the model indicate the presence of a simple set of rules related to critical health improvement program design and evaluation features. Whereas additional experience with the model will allow for further modifications and evolution, early experience indicates it serves program planners and administrators well in terms of systematic program improvement and documentation of effort and impact.
KeywordsProgram Design Health Improvement Health Promotion Program Physical Activity Program Work Plan
The authors have provided no information on sources of funding or on conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review.
- 1.Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health promotion planning: an educational and environmental approach. Mountain View (CA): Mayfield, 1991.Google Scholar
- 2.Breckon DJ. Hospital health education: a guide to program development. Palo Alto (CA): Mayfield, 1984.Google Scholar
- 3.Rohrer JE. Planning for community-oriented health systems. Baltimore (MD): APHA United Book Press, Inc, 1996.Google Scholar
- 4.Langley GJ, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, et al. The improvement guide. a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass, Inc, 1996.Google Scholar
- 5.Health and behavior: the interplay of biological, behavioral, and societal influences. Washington, DC. Committee on Health and Behavior, Research, Practice, and Policy Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, 2001.Google Scholar
- 6.Wheatley MJ, Kellner-Rogers M. A simpler way. San Francisco (CA): Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
- 7.Harman W. Global mind change: the promise of the twenty-first century. San Francisco (CA): Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc, 1998.Google Scholar
- 8.Bohm D. Wholeness and the implicate order. New York: Routledge, 1997.Google Scholar
- 9.Wilbur K. Sex, ecology, spirituality: the spirit of evolution. Boston (MA): Shambhala, 1995.Google Scholar
- 10.Von Bertalanffy L. General systems theory: foundations, development, and applications. Rev ed. New York: George Braziller Publishers, 1968.Google Scholar
- 11.Prigogine I, Stengers I. The end of certainty. New York: The Free Press, 1996.Google Scholar
- 12.Maturana HR, Varela FJ. The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding. Rev ed. Boston: Shambhala, 1998.Google Scholar
- 13.Abraham R, Shaw C. Dynamics. Santa Cruz (CA): Aerial, 1985.Google Scholar
- 14.Sheldrake R. A new science of life. Los Angeles (CA): Tarcher, 1981.Google Scholar
- 15.Murphy M. The future of the body. Los Angeles (CA): Tarcher, 1992.Google Scholar
- 16.Evans G, Barer ML, Marmor TR, editors. Why are some people healthy and others not? The determinants of health of populations. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994.Google Scholar
- 19.Senge PM. The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: DoubleDay, 1990.Google Scholar
- 21.Van de Ven A, Koenig R. A process model for program planning and evaluation. J Econ Bus 1976; 28(6): 161–70.Google Scholar
- 22.US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical activity and health: a report of the surgeon general. Atlanta (GA): US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1996.Google Scholar
- 26.Pronk NP, Entzion K. Worksite health promotion and managed care: creating partnerships for population health improvement. AWHP’s Worksite Health 1998; Summer: 10–7.Google Scholar
- 27.Abrams DB, Orleans CT, Niaura RS, et al. Integrating individual and public health perspectives for treatment of tobacco dependence under managed health care: a combined stepped care and matching model. Ann Intern Med 1996; 18: 290–304.Google Scholar