Advertisement

Evaluation of health promotion

  • John Kemm
  • Ann Close
Chapter

Abstract

To understand why it is important to evaluate health promotion activities and the principles used in these evaluations.

Keywords

Health Promotion Comparison Trial Coronary Risk Factor Health Promotion Activity Healthy Heart 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beattie A. (1990). Evaluation of community development initiative in health promotion: a review of current strategies. In Baseline review of community development and health education. London: Health Education Authority.Google Scholar
  2. Fitzgibbon C.T. and Morris L.L. (1987). How to design a programme evaluation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Nutbeam D., Smith C. and Catford J. (1990). Evaluation in health education: a review of progress, possibilities and problems. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 44, 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Tolley K. (1993). Health promotion: how to measure cost-effectiveness. London: Health Education Authority.Google Scholar

Examples of Different Types of Outcome Evaluation Studies Randomised controlled trial design

  1. Fehily A., Vaughan-Williams E., Shiels K. et al. (1989). The effect of dietary advice on nutrient intakes. Evidence from diet and reinfarction trial. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 2, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. MRFIT Research Group (1990). Mortality rates after 10.5 years for participants in MRFIT trial — findings related to a priori hypotheses. Journal of the American Medical Association 263, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comparison trial design

  1. Nutbeam D. and Catford J. (1987). The Welsh Heart Programme evaluation strategy: progress plans and possibilities. Health Promotion 2, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Salonen J.T., Kottke T.E., Jacobs D.R. and Hannan P.J. (1986). Analysis of community based cardiovascular studies. Evaluation issues in the North Karelia project. International Journal of Epidemiology 15, 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Walter HJ., Hofman A., Vaughan R.D. and Wynder E.L. (1988). Modification of risk factors for coronary heart disease — five year result of a school based intervention trial. New England Journal of Medicine 318, 1093–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Young I. (1993). Healthy eating polices in schools: an evaluation of effect on pupil knowledge and behaviour. Health Education Journal 52, 3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comparison of self-selected groups design

  1. Gibbs J.O., Mulvaney D., Henes C. and Read R. (1985). Work-site health promotion. Five year trend in employee health care costs. Journal of Occupational Medicine 27, 826–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uncontrolled before and after design

  1. Cameron I.H. and McGuire C. (1990). Are you dying to get a suntan — pre and post campaign survey results. Health Education Journal 49, 166–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hill A. and Mayon-White R.T. (1987). A telephone survey to evaluate an AIDS leaflet campaign. Health Education Journal 46, 127–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. McEwan R.T., Bhopal R. and Patten W. (1991). Drama on HIV and AIDS: an evaluation of a theatre in education programme. Health Education Journal 50, 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McGovern E., MacAuley D. and Anderson V. (1992). A nurse-led stop smoking initiative. Nursing Standard 7 (No. 25), 26–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© John Kemm and Ann Close 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Kemm
  • Ann Close

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations