Siow-Yen Liau1, Mohamed-Azmi A Hassali, Asrul A Shafie, Mohamed-Izham M Ibrahim. 1. PhD Candidate, Discipline of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, PenangAssociate Professor, Discipline of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, PenangSenior Lecturer, Discipline of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, MalaysiaProfessor, Pharmacy Practice Department, College of Pharmacy, Qassim University, Buraidah, Al Qassim, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An assessment of the process and outcomes of a health promotion programme is necessary for the continuous improvement of a programme. OBJECTIVE: To explore the participants' perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of the 'Love Your Heart Programme'. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants of the 'Love Your Heart' programme. Interviews were based on an interview guide that grouped questions into four main subgroups: structure, process, immediate outcomes and impact. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: A total of 17 interviews were conducted. The participants were satisfied with the structural aspects of the programme. Different opinions arose regarding the ideal frequency and duration of the programme. The content of the seminars was thought to be too general. There was also a lack of interest in the 'Road to a Healthy Heart' booklet. All of the respondents had positive opinions about the communication skills and attitude of the health educator. The potential advantages and disadvantages of participating in the programme were discussed. Finally, the respondents expressed their satisfaction with the programme and the impact it had on them. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In general, the participants who were interviewed held the programme, and the health educator conducted the programme in high regard. The suggestions that were received can be used to further improve the acceptability and feasibility of the programme.
BACKGROUND: An assessment of the process and outcomes of a health promotion programme is necessary for the continuous improvement of a programme. OBJECTIVE: To explore the participants' perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of the 'Love Your Heart Programme'. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of participants of the 'Love Your Heart' programme. Interviews were based on an interview guide that grouped questions into four main subgroups: structure, process, immediate outcomes and impact. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: A total of 17 interviews were conducted. The participants were satisfied with the structural aspects of the programme. Different opinions arose regarding the ideal frequency and duration of the programme. The content of the seminars was thought to be too general. There was also a lack of interest in the 'Road to a Healthy Heart' booklet. All of the respondents had positive opinions about the communication skills and attitude of the health educator. The potential advantages and disadvantages of participating in the programme were discussed. Finally, the respondents expressed their satisfaction with the programme and the impact it had on them. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In general, the participants who were interviewed held the programme, and the health educator conducted the programme in high regard. The suggestions that were received can be used to further improve the acceptability and feasibility of the programme.
Authors: David Edelman; Eugene Z Oddone; Richard S Liebowitz; William S Yancy; Maren K Olsen; Amy S Jeffreys; Samuel D Moon; Amy C Harris; Linda L Smith; Ruth E Quillian-Wolever; Tracy W Gaudet Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: I Robertson; A Phillips; D Mant; M Thorogood; G Fowler; A Fuller; P Yudkin; M Woods Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 1992-11 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Kate-Ellen J Elliott; Christine M Stirling; Angela J Martin; Andrew L Robinson; Jennifer L Scott Journal: Health Expect Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Sandra Vosbergen; Eva K Laan; Ersen B Colkesen; Maurice A J Niessen; Roderik A Kraaijenhagen; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot; Niels Peek Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 5.428