Ethical Review of Health Promotion Program Evaluation Proposals

Some policies state that program evaluation falls within the domain of administrative research that does not require review by an ethics review board. We propose that some health promotion program evaluations include at least one element of research and can be distinguished from quality assurance. A...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Health promotion practice 2003-01, Vol.4 (1), p.45-50
Hauptverfasser: Thurston, Wilfreda E., Vollman, Ardene Robinson, Burgess, Michael M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 50
container_issue 1
container_start_page 45
container_title Health promotion practice
container_volume 4
creator Thurston, Wilfreda E.
Vollman, Ardene Robinson
Burgess, Michael M.
description Some policies state that program evaluation falls within the domain of administrative research that does not require review by an ethics review board. We propose that some health promotion program evaluations include at least one element of research and can be distinguished from quality assurance. Although American and Canadian evaluation societies provide important guidelines and standards for evaluation practitioners, processes for accountability to the public are provided by research ethics boards. The field of health promotion is, by its nature, replete with challenges to existing research ethics boards. Given the dearth of published literature on the ethics of health promotion evaluation or practice, the field could benefit from the open debate that reviews of proposals would encourage.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/1524839902238290
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71394840</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26734146</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1177_1524839902238290</sage_id><sourcerecordid>26734146</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c270t-4b0436112811280afd4c31eba62fc32625f5824f3564b4b4d33ce9948bb839093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM9LwzAUx4Mobk7vXpSevFVffrRpTiKjOmGgiJ5DmqVbR7vMpJ3435vSqeBBQniP5PM-JF-EzjFcY8z5DU4Iy6gQQAjNiIADNMZJQuKUcnLY94TF_f0InXi_BgDOGRyjEWYpBsHxGN3m7arSqo5ezK4yH5Eto5lRdbuKnp1tbFvZTd8tnWqifKfqTn0fba1XtT9FR2Uo5mxfJ-jtPn-dzuL508Pj9G4ea8KhjVkBjKYYk6zfoMoF0xSbQqWk1JSkJCmTjLCSJikrwlpQqo0QLCuK8H4QdIKuBu_W2ffO-FY2ldemrtXG2M5LjmmgGQQQBlA7670zpdy6qlHuU2KQfWjyb2hh5HLv7orGLH4H9ikFIB4Ar5ZGrm3nNuGv_wkvBn7tW-t-fCTllAUp_QKO-3vJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71394840</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ethical Review of Health Promotion Program Evaluation Proposals</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Thurston, Wilfreda E. ; Vollman, Ardene Robinson ; Burgess, Michael M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Thurston, Wilfreda E. ; Vollman, Ardene Robinson ; Burgess, Michael M.</creatorcontrib><description>Some policies state that program evaluation falls within the domain of administrative research that does not require review by an ethics review board. We propose that some health promotion program evaluations include at least one element of research and can be distinguished from quality assurance. Although American and Canadian evaluation societies provide important guidelines and standards for evaluation practitioners, processes for accountability to the public are provided by research ethics boards. The field of health promotion is, by its nature, replete with challenges to existing research ethics boards. Given the dearth of published literature on the ethics of health promotion evaluation or practice, the field could benefit from the open debate that reviews of proposals would encourage.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1524-8399</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-6372</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1524839902238290</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14610971</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications</publisher><subject>Bioethics ; Canada ; Competitive Bidding ; Ethics ; Ethics Committees, Research ; Ethics, Research ; Health Promotion - standards ; Human Experimentation - ethics ; Humans ; Program Evaluation - methods ; Program Evaluation - standards ; United States</subject><ispartof>Health promotion practice, 2003-01, Vol.4 (1), p.45-50</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2003 Sage Publications</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c270t-4b0436112811280afd4c31eba62fc32625f5824f3564b4b4d33ce9948bb839093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c270t-4b0436112811280afd4c31eba62fc32625f5824f3564b4b4d33ce9948bb839093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26734146$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26734146$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14610971$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thurston, Wilfreda E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vollman, Ardene Robinson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burgess, Michael M.</creatorcontrib><title>Ethical Review of Health Promotion Program Evaluation Proposals</title><title>Health promotion practice</title><addtitle>Health Promot Pract</addtitle><description>Some policies state that program evaluation falls within the domain of administrative research that does not require review by an ethics review board. We propose that some health promotion program evaluations include at least one element of research and can be distinguished from quality assurance. Although American and Canadian evaluation societies provide important guidelines and standards for evaluation practitioners, processes for accountability to the public are provided by research ethics boards. The field of health promotion is, by its nature, replete with challenges to existing research ethics boards. Given the dearth of published literature on the ethics of health promotion evaluation or practice, the field could benefit from the open debate that reviews of proposals would encourage.</description><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Competitive Bidding</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Ethics Committees, Research</subject><subject>Ethics, Research</subject><subject>Health Promotion - standards</subject><subject>Human Experimentation - ethics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Program Evaluation - methods</subject><subject>Program Evaluation - standards</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1524-8399</issn><issn>1552-6372</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM9LwzAUx4Mobk7vXpSevFVffrRpTiKjOmGgiJ5DmqVbR7vMpJ3435vSqeBBQniP5PM-JF-EzjFcY8z5DU4Iy6gQQAjNiIADNMZJQuKUcnLY94TF_f0InXi_BgDOGRyjEWYpBsHxGN3m7arSqo5ezK4yH5Eto5lRdbuKnp1tbFvZTd8tnWqifKfqTn0fba1XtT9FR2Uo5mxfJ-jtPn-dzuL508Pj9G4ea8KhjVkBjKYYk6zfoMoF0xSbQqWk1JSkJCmTjLCSJikrwlpQqo0QLCuK8H4QdIKuBu_W2ffO-FY2ldemrtXG2M5LjmmgGQQQBlA7670zpdy6qlHuU2KQfWjyb2hh5HLv7orGLH4H9ikFIB4Ar5ZGrm3nNuGv_wkvBn7tW-t-fCTllAUp_QKO-3vJ</recordid><startdate>20030101</startdate><enddate>20030101</enddate><creator>Thurston, Wilfreda E.</creator><creator>Vollman, Ardene Robinson</creator><creator>Burgess, Michael M.</creator><general>Sage Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030101</creationdate><title>Ethical Review of Health Promotion Program Evaluation Proposals</title><author>Thurston, Wilfreda E. ; Vollman, Ardene Robinson ; Burgess, Michael M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c270t-4b0436112811280afd4c31eba62fc32625f5824f3564b4b4d33ce9948bb839093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Competitive Bidding</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Ethics Committees, Research</topic><topic>Ethics, Research</topic><topic>Health Promotion - standards</topic><topic>Human Experimentation - ethics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Program Evaluation - methods</topic><topic>Program Evaluation - standards</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thurston, Wilfreda E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vollman, Ardene Robinson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burgess, Michael M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Health promotion practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thurston, Wilfreda E.</au><au>Vollman, Ardene Robinson</au><au>Burgess, Michael M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ethical Review of Health Promotion Program Evaluation Proposals</atitle><jtitle>Health promotion practice</jtitle><addtitle>Health Promot Pract</addtitle><date>2003-01-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>45</spage><epage>50</epage><pages>45-50</pages><issn>1524-8399</issn><eissn>1552-6372</eissn><abstract>Some policies state that program evaluation falls within the domain of administrative research that does not require review by an ethics review board. We propose that some health promotion program evaluations include at least one element of research and can be distinguished from quality assurance. Although American and Canadian evaluation societies provide important guidelines and standards for evaluation practitioners, processes for accountability to the public are provided by research ethics boards. The field of health promotion is, by its nature, replete with challenges to existing research ethics boards. Given the dearth of published literature on the ethics of health promotion evaluation or practice, the field could benefit from the open debate that reviews of proposals would encourage.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>Sage Publications</pub><pmid>14610971</pmid><doi>10.1177/1524839902238290</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1524-8399
ispartof Health promotion practice, 2003-01, Vol.4 (1), p.45-50
issn 1524-8399
1552-6372
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71394840
source Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; SAGE Complete
subjects Bioethics
Canada
Competitive Bidding
Ethics
Ethics Committees, Research
Ethics, Research
Health Promotion - standards
Human Experimentation - ethics
Humans
Program Evaluation - methods
Program Evaluation - standards
United States
title Ethical Review of Health Promotion Program Evaluation Proposals
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T04%3A26%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ethical%20Review%20of%20Health%20Promotion%20Program%20Evaluation%20Proposals&rft.jtitle=Health%20promotion%20practice&rft.au=Thurston,%20Wilfreda%20E.&rft.date=2003-01-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=45&rft.epage=50&rft.pages=45-50&rft.issn=1524-8399&rft.eissn=1552-6372&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1524839902238290&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26734146%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71394840&rft_id=info:pmid/14610971&rft_jstor_id=26734146&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1524839902238290&rfr_iscdi=true