Literature DB >> 11067188

A community education monitoring system: methods from the Stanford Five-City Project, the Minnesota Heart Health Program and the Pawtucket Heart Health Program.

J A Flora1, R C Lefebvre, D M Murray, E J Stone, A Assaf, M B Mittelmark, J R Finnegan.   

Abstract

Understanding the process of behavior change interventions is critical to achieving campaign effectiveness and successful program replication. The present article presents a community education monitoring system (CEMS) using data from the Stanford Five-City Project (FCP), the Minnesota Heart Health Program (MHHP) and the Pawtucket Heart Health Program (PHHP). CEMS records the number and type of intervention activities, outcome objectives, targets of change (individual, organizational or environmental), channel(s) of dissemination and proportion of programs funded by the community. These data illustrate (1) the application of theory for each project, (2) data-based program administration, (3) feedback for revising programs and (4) type of reach or 'dose' information obtained from intervention monitoring. Process evaluations such as CEMS provide critical links between field realities and evaluation outcomes. This type of evaluation develops standards for measuring program reach and allows comparisons with other programs. CEMS also illustrates how programs enact theory. Validation studies are critical to the continued successful use of CEMS. The first step, however, is to develop a uniform way of describing complex multichannel behavior change programs. CEMS in a refined form should prove invaluable to health promotion program planners whether in research or service settings.

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 11067188     DOI: 10.1093/her/8.1.81

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Educ Res        ISSN: 0268-1153


  7 in total

1.  Complex interventions: how "out of control" can a randomised controlled trial be?

Authors:  Penelope Hawe; Alan Shiell; Therese Riley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-26

Review 2.  Methods for exploring implementation variation and local context within a cluster randomised community intervention trial.

Authors:  Penelope Hawe; Alan Shiell; Therese Riley; Lisa Gold
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Ecological theory in practice: illustrations from a community-based intervention to promote the health of recent mothers.

Authors:  Penelope Hawe; Therese Riley
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2005-09

4.  Process evaluation of the Pool Cool Diffusion Trial for skin cancer prevention across 2 years.

Authors:  Cam Escoffery; Karen Glanz; Tom Elliott
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2007-10-22

5.  Community education for cardiovascular disease prevention: risk factor changes in the Minnesota Heart Health Program.

Authors:  R V Luepker; D M Murray; D R Jacobs; M B Mittelmark; N Bracht; R Carlaw; R Crow; P Elmer; J Finnegan; A R Folsom
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Protocol for process evaluation of integration of mental health into primary healthcare in two states in Nigeria: the mhSUN programme.

Authors:  Julian Eaton; Yusuf Akande; Uchechi Onukogu; Emeka Nwefoh; Taiwo Lateef Sheikh; Ekpe Essien Ekpe; Oye Gureje
Journal:  BJPsych Open       Date:  2021-02-15

Review 7.  How explicable are differences between reviews that appear to address a similar research question? A review of reviews of physical activity interventions.

Authors:  Jenny Woodman; James Thomas; Kelly Dickson
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2012-08-17
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.