Advertisement

Practical Dilemmas for Health Promotion Evaluation

  • Louise Potvin
  • David V. McQueen

There are many interesting parallels to make between the field of evaluation and that of health promotion. Both are relatively new areas of activity in the broadly defined domain of empirical applied research. Both emerged within the last quarter of the twentieth century mostly related to government administrations. Finally both appear as applied fields in search of theories (see McQueen (1996) and McQueen, Kickbusch, Potvin, Pelikan, Balbo and Abel (2007) with regard to health promotion and Christie (2003), King (2003) and Shadish, Cook, and Leviton (1991) for evaluation).

For many authors (O’Connor, 1995; Rossi & Freeman, 1993; Shadish et al., 1991) evaluation started to become a distinct and institutionalised field of empirical research in the late 1960 s. This process was fuelled in part by the explosion of the U.S. Government demand for evaluation following the Johnson Administration adoption of the “Planning-Programming-Budgeting System” in all executive branch agencies...

Keywords

Health Promotion Causal Power Health Promotion Program Evaluation Project Health Promotion Intervention 
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.

References

  1. Barnes, M., Matka, E., & Sullivan, H. (2003). Evidence, understanding and complexity. Evaluation in non-linear systems. Evaluation, 9, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baskhar, R. (1978). A realist theory of science. Londres: Haverster heatsheaf.Google Scholar
  3. Bisset, S. L., & Potvin, L. (2007) Expanding our conceptualization of program implementation: Lessons from the genealogy of a school-based nutrition program. Health Education Research, 22, 737–746.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1972). Esquisse d’une théorie de la pratique. Genève: Librairie Dorz.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, P. (1995). The role of the evaluator in comprehensive community initiatives. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives. Concepts, methods and contexts (pp. 201–225). New York: Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. T. (1984). Can we be scientific in applied social science? In: R. F. Connor, D. G. Altman, & C. Jackson (Eds.), Evaluation studies review annual, Vol 9 (pp. 26–48). Beverly Hills CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Christie, C. A. (2003). What guides evaluation? A study of how evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 7–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1977). L’Acteur et le système. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  9. Dab, W. (2005). Reflections on the challenges of health programs. Promotion & Education, Suppl. No 3, 74–77.Google Scholar
  10. Dooris, M., Poland, B., Kolbe, L., De Leuuw, E., McCall, D., & Wharf-Higgins, J. (2007). Healthy settings. Building evidence for the effectiveness of whole system health promotion – Challenges and future directions. In D. V. McQueen & C. M. Jones (Eds.), Global perspectives on health promotion effectiveness (pp. 327–352). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elm, E. von Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gotzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P. for the Strobe initiative (2007). Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. British Medical Journal, 335, 806–808.Google Scholar
  12. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. (originally published in German in 1935). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Introduction to the theory of structuration. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Green, J. (2000). The role of theory in evidence-based health promotion practice. Health Education Research, 15, 125–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Green, L. W., & Lewis, F. M. (1986). Measurement and evaluation in health education and health promotion. Palo Alto CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  16. Hawe, P., Degeling, D. & Hall, J. (1990). Evaluating health promotion: A health worker’s guide. Sydney Australia: MacLennan.Google Scholar
  17. Hawe, P., & Potvin, L. (Forthcoming). What is population health intervention research? Canadian Journal of Public Health. Google Scholar
  18. Hawe, P., Shiell, A., & Riley, T. (2004). Complex interventions: How “out of control” can a randomized control trial be? British Medical Journal, 328, 1561–1563.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill, A. B. (1953). Observation and experiment. The New England Journal of Medicine, 248, 995–1001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hills, M., & McQueen, D. V. (Eds.) (2007). The Ottawa Charter for health promotion – A critical reflection. Promotion & Education, Suppl. 2.Google Scholar
  21. Kickbusch, I. (2003). The contribution of the World Health Organization to a new public health and health promotion. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 383–388.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. King, J. A. (2003). The challenge of studying evaluation theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. How to bring science into democracy. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. LeMoigne, J-M. (1977). La théorie du système général. Théorie de la modélisation. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  28. Levesque, L., Richard, L., Duplantie, J., Gauvin, L., Cargo, M., Renaud, L., et al. (2000). Vers une description et une évaluation du caractère écologique des interventions en promotion de la santé: le cas du Programme de la Carélie du nord. Rupture, revue transdisciplinaire en santé, 7, 114–129.Google Scholar
  29. McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your programs performance story. Program Planning and Evaluation, 22, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McQueen, D. V. (1996). The search for theory in health behaviour and health promotion. Health Promotion International, 11, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McQueen, D. V. (1988). Directions for research in health behaviors related to health promotion: an overview. In R. Anderson, J. K. Davies, I. Kickbusch, D. V. McQueen & J. Turner (Eds.), Health behaviour research and health promotion (pp. 251–265). Oxford; Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. McQueen, D. V. (2007a). Critical issues in theory for health promotion. 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. 21–42). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. McQueen, D. V. (2007b). Evidence and theory. Continuing debates on evidence and effectiveness. In D. V. McQueen & C. M. Jones (Eds.), Global perspectives on health promotion effectiveness (pp. 281–303). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McQueen, D. V., & Anderson, L. M. (2001). What counts as evidence: Issues and debates. In I. Rootman, M. Goodstadt, B. Hyndman, D. V. McQueen, L. Potvin, J. Springett, & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Evaluation in health promotion. Principles and perspectives (pp. 63–81). Copenhague: WHO regional publications. European series; No 92.Google Scholar
  35. McQueen, D. V., & Jones, C. M. (Eds.) (2007). Global perspectives on health promotion effectiveness. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McQueen, D. V., Kickbusch, I., Potvin, L., Pelikan, J. M., Balbo, L., & Abel, T. (2007). Health & modernity. The role of theory in health promotion. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet, 285, 1191–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nutbeam, D. (2004). Getting evidence into policy and practice to address health inequalities. Health Promotion International, 19, 137–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Nutbeam, D., & Bauman, A. E. (2006). Evaluation in a nutshell: A practical guide to the evaluation of health promotion programs. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  41. O’Connor, A. (1995). Evaluating comprehensive community initiatives: A view from history. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and context. (pp. 23–63). Washington D.C.: Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  42. Pawson R. (2000). Evidence-based policy: The promise of Realist Synthesis. Evaluation, 8, 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Potvin, L. (2006). Should we worry about the enthusiasm toward evidence-based health promotion practices? Promotion & Education, 13, 228–229.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Potvin, L., & Chabot, P. (2002). Splendour and misery of epidemiology for evaluation of health promotion. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, 5(Suppl. 1), 91–103.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. L. M. Bosi & F. J. Mercado (Eds.), Avaloaçao qualitative de programas de saude. Enfoques emergentes (pp. 65–86). Petropolis, Brazil: Vozes Editorial.Google Scholar
  47. Potvin, L., Gendron, S., Bilodeau, A., & Chabot, P. (2005). Integrating social science theory into public health practice. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 591–595.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Potvin, L., & Goldberg, C. (2007). Two roles of evaluation in transforming health promotion practice. In M. O’Neill, A, Pederson., S. Dupéré & I. Rootman (Eds.), Health promotion in Canada. Critical perspective, Second edition (pp. 347–360). Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press.Google Scholar
  49. 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, & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Evaluation in health promotion. Principles and perspectives (pp. 45–62). Copenhague: WHO regional publications. European series; No 92.Google Scholar
  50. Potvin, L., & McQueen, D. V. (2007). Modernity, public health and health promotion. A reflexive discourse. 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. 12–20). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Potvin, L., Mantoura, P., & Ridde, V. (2007). Evaluating equity in health promotion. In D. V. McQueen & C. M. Jones (Eds.), Global erspectives on health promotion effectiveness (pp. 367–383). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rothman, K. L. (1986). Modern epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  53. Rootman, I., Goodstadt, M., Hyndman, B., McQueen, D. V., Potvin, L., Springett, J., et al. (Eds.) (2001). Evaluation in health promotion. Principles and perspectives. Copenhague: WHO regional publications. European series; No 92.Google Scholar
  54. 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, & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Evaluation in health promotion. Principles and perspectives (pp. 7–38). Copenhague: WHO regional publications. European series; No 92.Google Scholar
  55. Rossi. P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation. A systematic approach. Newbury Park CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non randomized studies. Journal of Education Psychology, 66, 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schwandt, T. A. (2005). The centrality of practice to evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shadish, W. R., Jr., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. L. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Suchman, E. A. (1967). Evaluation research. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  60. Thurston, W. E., & Potvin, L. (2003). Evaluability assessment: A tool for incorporating evaluation in social change programs. Evaluation, 9, 453–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Valente, T. W. (2002). Evaluating health promotion programs. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. WHO. (1986). The Ottawa Charter for heath promotion. Downloaded in November 2007 from: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/phdd/pdf/charter.pdf
  63. Williams, G. H. (2003). The determinants of health: structure, context and agency. Sociology of Health & Ilness, 25, 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Windsor, R. A. (1994). Evaluation of health promotion, health education and disease prevention programs. Mountain View CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  65. Windsor, R. Baranowski, T., Clark, N., & Cutter, G. (1984). Evaluation of health promotion, health education programs. Mountain View: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  66. Windsor, R. A., Clark, N. M., Boyd, N. R., & Goodman, R. M. (2003). Evaluation of health promotion, health education and disease prevention programs (3rd edition). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  67. Zaza, S., Briss, P. A., & Harris, K. W. (2005). The guide to community preventive services. What works to promote health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise Potvin
    • 1
  • David V. McQueen
  1. 1.Department of Social and Preventive MedicineUniversité de MontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations