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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Health promotion practice 2003-01, Vol.4 (1), p.45-50 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 |