From Knowledge to Action: Challenges and Opportunities for Increasing the Use of Evaluation in Health Promotion Policies and Practices

  • Zulmira M.A. Hartz
  • Jean-Louis Denis
  • Elizabeth Moreira
  • Alvaro Matida

The gap between scientific knowledge and its concrete translation into improvement of people’s quality of life is well-known. (Berghmans & Potvin, 2005 p. 19)

How to make evaluation useful and used are familiar topics that appear to be perennial concerns for evaluators in general. We often talk about the utilization of evaluation research results in policies almost like an inevitable output of evaluation, but we must recognize the challenges that can impede or limit this pursuit. In the health promotion field, for example, these challenges can help us explain the well-known gap between available scientific knowledge, potential effectiveness of social interventions, and improvement in people’s quality of life, as quoted above.

Our objective in this chapter is to present some theoretical assumptions and related factors associated with evaluation use as discussed in the literature, and to provide a framework that could increase opportunities to influence health promotion practices and...


Knowledge Translation Health Promotion Action External Explanation Translation Theory Social Betterment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Almeida, C., & Bascolo, E. (2006). Use of research results in policy decision-making: A review of the literature. Cadernos de Saude Publica, 22, S7–S33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, Q. E., Davis, D. A., Gallerani, R., Sanchez, V., & Viadro, C. (2000). An evaluation framework of community health programs. Durham NC: The Center for Advancement of Community Based Public Health. Downloaded in November 2007 from:
  3. Berghmans, L., & Potvin, L. (2005). Health promotion and local and regional actors: Lessons from the conference. Promotion & Education, Supplement 3, 71–74.Google Scholar
  4. Bilodeau, A., Chamberland, C. & White, D. (2002). L’innovation sociale, une condition pour accroître la qualité de l’action en partenariat dans le champ de la santé publique. Revue Canadienne d’évaluation de Programme, 17, 59–88.Google Scholar
  5. Borowski, H., Hanney, S., Lindquist, E., & Roger, R. (2005). Bridging the gap: The use of research evidence in policy development. Edmonton: Health Technology Assessment, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. Downloaded in November 2007 from:
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1997). For a sociogenetic understanding of intellectual works. In C. Calhoun, E. LiPuma, & M. Postone (Eds.), Bourdieu: Critical perspectives (pp. 264–275). Chicago: The Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bryant, T. (2002) Role of knowledge in public health and health promotion policy change. Health Promotion International, 17, 89–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Callon, M. (1986) éléments pour une sociologie de la traduction. La domestication des coquilles de St-Jacques. L’année sociologique, 36, 169–208.Google Scholar
  9. Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1986). Les paradoxes de la modernité. Comment concevoir les innovations? Clés pour l’analyse sociotechnique. Prospective et santé, 36(hiver), 13–29.Google Scholar
  10. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. (CHSRF, 2005). A spotlight on networks. Links, 8(1), 9.Google Scholar
  11. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (CIHR, 2004). Innovation in action: Knowledge translation strategies 2004–2009. Downloaded in November 2007 from:
  12. Caracelli, V. J. (2000). Evaluation use at the threshold of the twenty-first century. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Community Based Public Health (CBPH, 2000). An evaluation framework of community health programs. Downloaded in November 2005 from
  14. Centers for Diseases Control. (CDC, 1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, 48(RR-11), 1–40.Google Scholar
  15. Center for Diseases Control (CDC, 2005). Annual report global aids program – CDC: reporting period: September 2003 – Octobrt 2004. Brady W; Westman S; Moore J (Org). Brasília DF: CDC/GAP.Google Scholar
  16. Champagne, F., Contandriopoulos, A. -P., & Tanon, A. (2004). A program-evaluation perspective on processes, practices, and decision-makers. In L. Lemieux-Charles, & F. Champagne (Eds.), Using knowledge and evidence in health care: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 139–171). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  17. Christie, A. C. (2007). Reported influence of evaluation data on decision-makers’ actions: An empirical examination. The American Journal of Evaluation, 28, 8–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Leeuw, E., & Skovgaard, T. (2005). Utility-driven evidence for healthy cities: Problems with evidence generation and application. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1331–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denis, J. -L., Lehoux, P., & Champagne, F. (2004). A knowledge-utilization perspective on fine-tuning dissemination and contextualizing knowledge. In L. Lemieux-Charles, & F. Champagne (Eds.), Using knowledge and evidence in health care: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 11–41). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  20. Edmundo, K., Guimarães, W., Vasconcelos, M. S., Baptista, A. P., & Becker, D. (2005). Network of communities in fight against AIDS: Local action to address health inequities and promote health in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Promotion & Education Supplement, 3, 15–19.Google Scholar
  21. Elias, F. T. S., & Patroclo, M. A. A. (2005). Research use: How to build a theoretical model of evaluation? Ciência & Saude Coletiva, 10, 215–227.Google Scholar
  22. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).Google Scholar
  23. Freire, P. (1967). Educação como prática de liberdade Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar.Google Scholar
  24. Freire, P. (1987) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  25. Gadotti M. (1994) Reading Paulo Freire: His Life and Work, Albany: Sunny Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gardner, F. (2003). User friendly evaluation in community-based projects. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 18, 71–89.Google Scholar
  27. Gibbons, M., Limoges C, Nowotny, H. Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). Introduction. In M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, & P. Scott (Eds.), The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary society (pp. 1–16). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Hanney, S. R., Gonzalez-Block, M., Buxton, M. J., & Kogan, M. (2003). The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Research Policy and System, 1, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Health Promotion Agency. (HPA, 2005). Health Promotion theories and models. Downloaded in November 2007 from:
  30. Henry, G. T. (2000). Why not use? New Directions in Evaluation, 88, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henry, G. T. & Mark, M. M. (2003). Beyond use: Understanding evaluation’s influence on attitudes and actions. The American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirkhart, K. E. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lahtinen, E., Koskinene-Ollonqvist, P., Rouvinene-Wilenius, P., Tuominen, P., & Mittelmark, M. B. (2005) The development of quality criteria for research: A Finnish approach. Health Promotion International, 20, 306–315.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A Sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103–131). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Latour, B. (1997) On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Downloaded in November 2007 from:
  36. Latour, B. (2001). A esperança de pandora. São Paulo: Edusc.Google Scholar
  37. Lavis, J. N., Farrant, M. S. R., & Stoddart, G. L. (2001). Barriers to employment-related healthy public policy in Canada. Health Promotion International, 16, 9–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lavis, J. N., Ross, S. E., Hurley, J. E., Hohenadel, J. M., Stoddart G. L., Woodward, C. A., & Abelson, J. (2002) Examining the role of health services research in public policymaking. Milbank Quarterly, 80, 125–154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lehoux, P., Battista, R. N., & Lance, J-M. (2000). Monitoring health technology assessment agencies. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 15, 1–33.Google Scholar
  40. Mark, M. M., & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ministerio da Saude (2004). Programa Nacional de DST e Aids. Monitor Aids. Brasilia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  42. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the publica in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity pressGoogle Scholar
  43. Patton, M. Q. (1997) Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. (3 ed.) California: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Patton, M. Q. (1988). The evaluator responsibility for utilizationé. Evaluation Practice, 9, 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Potvin, L. (2007). Managing uncertainty through participation. In D. V. McQueen, I. Kickbusch, L. Potvin, J. M Pelikan, L. Balbo, & T. Abel (Eds.), Health & modernity. The role of theory in health promotion (pp. 103–128). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Potvin, L., Gendron, S., & Bilodeau, A. (2006). Três Posturas Ontológicas Concernentes à Natureza dos programas de saúde: implicações para a avaliação. In M. Bosi, & F. J. Mercado (Eds.), Avaliação qualitativa de programas de saúde. Enfoques emergentes (pp.65–86). Sao Paulo: Editora Vozes.Google Scholar
  47. Potvin, L., Haddad, S., & Frohlich, K. L. (2001). Beyond process and outcome evaluation: a comprehensive approach for evaluating health promotion programmes. In I. Rootman, M. Goodstadt, B. Hyndman, D. V. McQueen, L. Potvin, & J. Springett (Eds.), Evaluation in health promotion. Principles and perspectives (pp. 45–62). WHO Regional Publications, European Series no. 92.Google Scholar
  48. Preskill, H., & Torres, R. T. (2000). The learning dimensions of evaluation use. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Raphael, D. (2000). The question of evidence in health promotion. Health Promotion International, 15, 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rootman, I., Goodstadt, M., Potvin, L., & Springett, J. (2001). A framework for Health Promotion Evaluation. In I. Rootman, M. Goodstadt, B. Hyndman, D. V. McQueen, L. Potvin, & J. Springett (Eds.), Evaluation in health promotion. Principles and perspectives (pp. 7–38). WHO Regional Publications, European Series no 92.Google Scholar
  51. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2000). Critical inquiry and use as action. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Russel, S., & Williams, R. (2002). Social shaping of technology: frameworks. Findings and implications for policy with glossary of social shaping concepts. In K. Serensen & R. Williams (Eds.), Shaping technology, guiding policy: Concepts, spaces & tools (pp. 37–131). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  53. Rychetnik, L., & Wise, M. (2004). Advocating evidence-based health promotion: reflections and a way forward. Health Promotion International, 19, 247–257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Schwandt, T. A. (2005). The centrality of practice in evaluation. The American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scriven, M. (2005). Key evaluation checklist. Downloaded in November 2007 from:
  56. Sontag, K. -C. (2005). Implementation of translational medicine. Journal of Translational Medicine, 3, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spinuzzi, C. (2005). Reading roundup: Callon on translation. Downloaded in December 2007 from
  58. Sridharan, S. (2003). Introduction to special section on “What is a useful evaluation”. The American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 483–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. The National Implementation Research Network) (NIRN, 2005). Implementation Research: a synthesis of the literature. Downloaded in December 2007from: resources/publications/monograph
  60. Trostle, J., Bronfman, M., & Langer, A. (1999). How does research influence decision-makers? Health Policy and Planning, 14, 103–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. UNAIDS (2000). Putting knowledge to work: Technical resource networks for effective responses to HIV/AIDS. Downloaded in November 2007 from: IRC-pub05/JC483-PuttingKnowledge_en.pdf
  62. Weiss, C. H. (1988). Evaluation for decision : is anybody there ? Does anybody care? Evaluation Practice, 9, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weiss, C. H. (1999). The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation, 5, 468–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weiss, C. H., Murphy-Graham, E., & Birkeland, S. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence. How evaluation affects DARE. The American Journal of evaluation, 26, 12–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. World Bank. (2004). Influential evaluations. Evaluations that improved performance and impacts of development programs. Washington DC: The World BankGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zulmira M.A. Hartz
    • 1
  • Jean-Louis Denis
  • Elizabeth Moreira
  • Alvaro Matida
  1. 1.Foundations Oswaldo CruzRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations