An assessment of program evaluation methods and quality in Australian prevention agencies
Issue addressed: This study aimed to examine evaluation methods and quality in Australian health promotion agencies and the factors associated with this. The evidence base for prevention strategies is limited, with the evidence generated through program evaluation by health promotion and disease pre...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Health promotion journal of Australia 2020-09, Vol.31 (3), p.456-467 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 467 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 456 |
container_title | Health promotion journal of Australia |
container_volume | 31 |
creator | Schwarzman, Joanna Nau, Tracy Bauman, Adrian Gabbe, Belinda J. Rissel, Chris Shilton, Trevor Smith, Ben J. |
description | Issue addressed: This study aimed to examine evaluation methods and quality in Australian health promotion agencies and the factors associated with this. The evidence base for prevention strategies is limited, with the evidence generated through program evaluation by health promotion and disease prevention agencies lacking rigour. Despite the need to improve the quality of evaluation, there is limited evidence of what influences evaluation quality in the prevention field.
Methods: Data were collected using the Evaluation Practice Analysis Survey and an audit and appraisal of evaluation reports. Descriptive analysis was used to examine evaluation characteristics and multivariable regression was used to explore the association between evaluation and organisational attributes and evaluation quality.
Results: In total, 392 evaluation reports were reviewed from 78 government and non-government agencies. Process evaluation was conducted most frequently, followed by impact evaluation. Overall evaluation quality was low (median 24.5%). In multivariable regression analysis, only two factors were associated with evaluation quality: health promotion budget (ratio of geometric means 1.53 [95% CI 1.02-2.29]); and, conducting statewide or national prevention programs (1.38 [95% CI 1.05-1.82]).
Conclusions: The findings show that the potential to improve evaluation quality is greatest in smaller organisations that deliver health promotion at a local or regional scale.
So what? By improving the rigour of existing evaluation, there is opportunity to build the evidence base for prevention strategies, which highlights the importance of embedding the enablers of program learning and evidence generation within health promotion and prevention organisations. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/hpja.287 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_hpja_287</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><informt_id>10.3316/informit.431558265937622</informt_id><sourcerecordid>2272740281</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4937-ace964820dbf37f178df9b4b55c37b036aa8cfcd37c7cc7bf750d5f4b824d6423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqdkE1rFDEYgINY7FoFf4EMePEyNV-TzB6XUltLwR7ag6fwTibZzTKTbJNMZf-9mW61InjpKYQ878ObB6EPBJ8SjOmXzW4Lp7SVr9CCUkxqIoh8jRYEM1ETLNkxepvSFmOybHD7Bh0zwnFLuVygHytfQUompdH4XAVb7WJYRxgr8wDDBNkFX40mb0KfKvB9dT_B4PK-cr5aTSnHcgNfhsxDmZ9hWBuvnUnv0JGFIZn3T-cJuvt6fnt2WV9_v_h2trquNV8yWYM2S8FbivvOMmmJbHu77HjXNJrJrnwAoNVW90xqqbXsrGxw31jelf17wSk7QZ8P3rL4_WRSVqNL2gwDeBOmpCiVVHJMW1LQT_-g2zBFX7ZTlDdYiBJFPgt1DClFY9UuuhHiXhGs5txqzq1K7oJ-fBJO3Wj6P-DvvgWoD8BPN5j9f0Xq8uZqdRDeHvg4uqx0GAaj56ppCzmpZCDqjXLehsf3ENeqD27WMUbE8wNnpGlaKppSWNC50dVfWtiBzS-X_QIF98EO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2450660827</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An assessment of program evaluation methods and quality in Australian prevention agencies</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Schwarzman, Joanna ; Nau, Tracy ; Bauman, Adrian ; Gabbe, Belinda J. ; Rissel, Chris ; Shilton, Trevor ; Smith, Ben J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schwarzman, Joanna ; Nau, Tracy ; Bauman, Adrian ; Gabbe, Belinda J. ; Rissel, Chris ; Shilton, Trevor ; Smith, Ben J.</creatorcontrib><description>Issue addressed: This study aimed to examine evaluation methods and quality in Australian health promotion agencies and the factors associated with this. The evidence base for prevention strategies is limited, with the evidence generated through program evaluation by health promotion and disease prevention agencies lacking rigour. Despite the need to improve the quality of evaluation, there is limited evidence of what influences evaluation quality in the prevention field.
Methods: Data were collected using the Evaluation Practice Analysis Survey and an audit and appraisal of evaluation reports. Descriptive analysis was used to examine evaluation characteristics and multivariable regression was used to explore the association between evaluation and organisational attributes and evaluation quality.
Results: In total, 392 evaluation reports were reviewed from 78 government and non-government agencies. Process evaluation was conducted most frequently, followed by impact evaluation. Overall evaluation quality was low (median 24.5%). In multivariable regression analysis, only two factors were associated with evaluation quality: health promotion budget (ratio of geometric means 1.53 [95% CI 1.02-2.29]); and, conducting statewide or national prevention programs (1.38 [95% CI 1.05-1.82]).
Conclusions: The findings show that the potential to improve evaluation quality is greatest in smaller organisations that deliver health promotion at a local or regional scale.
So what? By improving the rigour of existing evaluation, there is opportunity to build the evidence base for prevention strategies, which highlights the importance of embedding the enablers of program learning and evidence generation within health promotion and prevention organisations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1036-1073</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2201-1617</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/hpja.287</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31408247</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>West Perth, WA: Australian Health Promotion Association</publisher><subject>Audits ; Community health care ; Cost effectiveness ; Data collection ; Data quality ; Disease prevention ; Embedding ; Ethics ; Evaluation ; evidence‐based practice ; Funding ; government ; Government agencies ; Health education ; health equity ; Health promotion ; Medicine, Preventive ; non‐government organisations ; Prevention ; Prevention programs ; primary prevention ; Program evaluation ; Public health ; Regression analysis ; Rigour</subject><ispartof>Health promotion journal of Australia, 2020-09, Vol.31 (3), p.456-467</ispartof><rights>2019 Australian Health Promotion Association</rights><rights>2019 Australian Health Promotion Association.</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Sep 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4937-ace964820dbf37f178df9b4b55c37b036aa8cfcd37c7cc7bf750d5f4b824d6423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4937-ace964820dbf37f178df9b4b55c37b036aa8cfcd37c7cc7bf750d5f4b824d6423</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1209-2523</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fhpja.287$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fhpja.287$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,12846,27866,27924,27925,30999,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31408247$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schwarzman, Joanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nau, Tracy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauman, Adrian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabbe, Belinda J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rissel, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shilton, Trevor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Ben J.</creatorcontrib><title>An assessment of program evaluation methods and quality in Australian prevention agencies</title><title>Health promotion journal of Australia</title><addtitle>Health Promot J Austr</addtitle><description>Issue addressed: This study aimed to examine evaluation methods and quality in Australian health promotion agencies and the factors associated with this. The evidence base for prevention strategies is limited, with the evidence generated through program evaluation by health promotion and disease prevention agencies lacking rigour. Despite the need to improve the quality of evaluation, there is limited evidence of what influences evaluation quality in the prevention field.
Methods: Data were collected using the Evaluation Practice Analysis Survey and an audit and appraisal of evaluation reports. Descriptive analysis was used to examine evaluation characteristics and multivariable regression was used to explore the association between evaluation and organisational attributes and evaluation quality.
Results: In total, 392 evaluation reports were reviewed from 78 government and non-government agencies. Process evaluation was conducted most frequently, followed by impact evaluation. Overall evaluation quality was low (median 24.5%). In multivariable regression analysis, only two factors were associated with evaluation quality: health promotion budget (ratio of geometric means 1.53 [95% CI 1.02-2.29]); and, conducting statewide or national prevention programs (1.38 [95% CI 1.05-1.82]).
Conclusions: The findings show that the potential to improve evaluation quality is greatest in smaller organisations that deliver health promotion at a local or regional scale.
So what? By improving the rigour of existing evaluation, there is opportunity to build the evidence base for prevention strategies, which highlights the importance of embedding the enablers of program learning and evidence generation within health promotion and prevention organisations.</description><subject>Audits</subject><subject>Community health care</subject><subject>Cost effectiveness</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Data quality</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>Embedding</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>evidence‐based practice</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>government</subject><subject>Government agencies</subject><subject>Health education</subject><subject>health equity</subject><subject>Health promotion</subject><subject>Medicine, Preventive</subject><subject>non‐government organisations</subject><subject>Prevention</subject><subject>Prevention programs</subject><subject>primary prevention</subject><subject>Program evaluation</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Rigour</subject><issn>1036-1073</issn><issn>2201-1617</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqdkE1rFDEYgINY7FoFf4EMePEyNV-TzB6XUltLwR7ag6fwTibZzTKTbJNMZf-9mW61InjpKYQ878ObB6EPBJ8SjOmXzW4Lp7SVr9CCUkxqIoh8jRYEM1ETLNkxepvSFmOybHD7Bh0zwnFLuVygHytfQUompdH4XAVb7WJYRxgr8wDDBNkFX40mb0KfKvB9dT_B4PK-cr5aTSnHcgNfhsxDmZ9hWBuvnUnv0JGFIZn3T-cJuvt6fnt2WV9_v_h2trquNV8yWYM2S8FbivvOMmmJbHu77HjXNJrJrnwAoNVW90xqqbXsrGxw31jelf17wSk7QZ8P3rL4_WRSVqNL2gwDeBOmpCiVVHJMW1LQT_-g2zBFX7ZTlDdYiBJFPgt1DClFY9UuuhHiXhGs5txqzq1K7oJ-fBJO3Wj6P-DvvgWoD8BPN5j9f0Xq8uZqdRDeHvg4uqx0GAaj56ppCzmpZCDqjXLehsf3ENeqD27WMUbE8wNnpGlaKppSWNC50dVfWtiBzS-X_QIF98EO</recordid><startdate>202009</startdate><enddate>202009</enddate><creator>Schwarzman, Joanna</creator><creator>Nau, Tracy</creator><creator>Bauman, Adrian</creator><creator>Gabbe, Belinda J.</creator><creator>Rissel, Chris</creator><creator>Shilton, Trevor</creator><creator>Smith, Ben J.</creator><general>Australian Health Promotion Association</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1209-2523</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202009</creationdate><title>An assessment of program evaluation methods and quality in Australian prevention agencies</title><author>Schwarzman, Joanna ; Nau, Tracy ; Bauman, Adrian ; Gabbe, Belinda J. ; Rissel, Chris ; Shilton, Trevor ; Smith, Ben J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4937-ace964820dbf37f178df9b4b55c37b036aa8cfcd37c7cc7bf750d5f4b824d6423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Audits</topic><topic>Community health care</topic><topic>Cost effectiveness</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Data quality</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>Embedding</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>evidence‐based practice</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>government</topic><topic>Government agencies</topic><topic>Health education</topic><topic>health equity</topic><topic>Health promotion</topic><topic>Medicine, Preventive</topic><topic>non‐government organisations</topic><topic>Prevention</topic><topic>Prevention programs</topic><topic>primary prevention</topic><topic>Program evaluation</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Rigour</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schwarzman, Joanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nau, Tracy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauman, Adrian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabbe, Belinda J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rissel, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shilton, Trevor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Ben J.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Health promotion journal of Australia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schwarzman, Joanna</au><au>Nau, Tracy</au><au>Bauman, Adrian</au><au>Gabbe, Belinda J.</au><au>Rissel, Chris</au><au>Shilton, Trevor</au><au>Smith, Ben J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An assessment of program evaluation methods and quality in Australian prevention agencies</atitle><jtitle>Health promotion journal of Australia</jtitle><addtitle>Health Promot J Austr</addtitle><date>2020-09</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>456</spage><epage>467</epage><pages>456-467</pages><issn>1036-1073</issn><eissn>2201-1617</eissn><abstract>Issue addressed: This study aimed to examine evaluation methods and quality in Australian health promotion agencies and the factors associated with this. The evidence base for prevention strategies is limited, with the evidence generated through program evaluation by health promotion and disease prevention agencies lacking rigour. Despite the need to improve the quality of evaluation, there is limited evidence of what influences evaluation quality in the prevention field.
Methods: Data were collected using the Evaluation Practice Analysis Survey and an audit and appraisal of evaluation reports. Descriptive analysis was used to examine evaluation characteristics and multivariable regression was used to explore the association between evaluation and organisational attributes and evaluation quality.
Results: In total, 392 evaluation reports were reviewed from 78 government and non-government agencies. Process evaluation was conducted most frequently, followed by impact evaluation. Overall evaluation quality was low (median 24.5%). In multivariable regression analysis, only two factors were associated with evaluation quality: health promotion budget (ratio of geometric means 1.53 [95% CI 1.02-2.29]); and, conducting statewide or national prevention programs (1.38 [95% CI 1.05-1.82]).
Conclusions: The findings show that the potential to improve evaluation quality is greatest in smaller organisations that deliver health promotion at a local or regional scale.
So what? By improving the rigour of existing evaluation, there is opportunity to build the evidence base for prevention strategies, which highlights the importance of embedding the enablers of program learning and evidence generation within health promotion and prevention organisations.</abstract><cop>West Perth, WA</cop><pub>Australian Health Promotion Association</pub><pmid>31408247</pmid><doi>10.1002/hpja.287</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1209-2523</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1036-1073 |
ispartof | Health promotion journal of Australia, 2020-09, Vol.31 (3), p.456-467 |
issn | 1036-1073 2201-1617 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_hpja_287 |
source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; PAIS Index; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | Audits Community health care Cost effectiveness Data collection Data quality Disease prevention Embedding Ethics Evaluation evidence‐based practice Funding government Government agencies Health education health equity Health promotion Medicine, Preventive non‐government organisations Prevention Prevention programs primary prevention Program evaluation Public health Regression analysis Rigour |
title | An assessment of program evaluation methods and quality in Australian prevention agencies |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T09%3A46%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20assessment%20of%20program%20evaluation%20methods%20and%20quality%20in%20Australian%20prevention%20agencies&rft.jtitle=Health%20promotion%20journal%20of%20Australia&rft.au=Schwarzman,%20Joanna&rft.date=2020-09&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=456&rft.epage=467&rft.pages=456-467&rft.issn=1036-1073&rft.eissn=2201-1617&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/hpja.287&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2272740281%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2450660827&rft_id=info:pmid/31408247&rft_informt_id=10.3316/informit.431558265937622&rfr_iscdi=true |