Melanie Crane1,2, Adrian Bauman1,2, Beverley Lloyd3, Bronwyn McGill1,2, Chris Rissel1,3, Anne Grunseit1,2. 1. The University of Sydney, Sydney School of Public Health, Prevention Research Collaboration, Charles Perkins Centre, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 2. The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 3. NSW Office of Preventive Health, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
ISSUE ADDRESSED: Complex health promotion programs, which can have multilevels of implementation and multi-components with nonlinear causal pathways, present many evaluation challenges. Traditional evaluation methods often fail to account for the complexity inherent in assessing these programs. In real-world settings, evaluations of complex programs are often beset by additional constraints of limited budgets and short timeframes. Determining whether a complex program is successful and how a program worked requires evaluators of complex programs to adopt a level of pragmatism. METHODS: This paper describes a pragmatic evaluation approach used to evaluate the Get Healthy at Work workplace health promotion program, implemented in New South Wales, Australia. Using the program as a case study, we describe some key principles for applying a pragmatic evaluation approach and use these principles to develop an appropriate evaluation strategy. RESULTS: The evaluation includes multiple research methods to assess program outputs and implementation; and identify emergent program impacts, within constrained resources. The evaluation was guided by epistemological flexibility, methodological comprehensiveness and operational practicality. CONCLUSION: Health promotion programs, such as state-wide obesity prevention programs, require appropriate evaluation methods which address their inherent complexity amidst the real-world evaluation constraints, and focuses on the essential evaluation needs. SO WHAT: The main complex program evaluation principles are applicable to other multilevel health promotion programs, challenged by methodological and practical or political constraints.
ISSUE ADDRESSED: Complex health promotion programs, which can have multilevels of implementation and multi-components with nonlinear causal pathways, present many evaluation challenges. Traditional evaluation methods often fail to account for the complexity inherent in assessing these programs. In real-world settings, evaluations of complex programs are often beset by additional constraints of limited budgets and short timeframes. Determining whether a complex program is successful and how a program worked requires evaluators of complex programs to adopt a level of pragmatism. METHODS: This paper describes a pragmatic evaluation approach used to evaluate the Get Healthy at Work workplace health promotion program, implemented in New South Wales, Australia. Using the program as a case study, we describe some key principles for applying a pragmatic evaluation approach and use these principles to develop an appropriate evaluation strategy. RESULTS: The evaluation includes multiple research methods to assess program outputs and implementation; and identify emergent program impacts, within constrained resources. The evaluation was guided by epistemological flexibility, methodological comprehensiveness and operational practicality. CONCLUSION: Health promotion programs, such as state-wide obesity prevention programs, require appropriate evaluation methods which address their inherent complexity amidst the real-world evaluation constraints, and focuses on the essential evaluation needs. SO WHAT: The main complex program evaluation principles are applicable to other multilevel health promotion programs, challenged by methodological and practical or political constraints.
Authors: John Wright; Andrew Hayward; Jane West; Kate Pickett; Rosie M McEachan; Mark Mon-Williams; Nicola Christie; Laura Vaughan; Jess Sheringham; Muki Haklay; Laura Sheard; Josie Dickerson; Sally Barber; Neil Small; Richard Cookson; Philip Garnett; Tracey Bywater; Nicholas Pleace; Eric J Brunner; Claire Cameron; Marcella Ucci; Steve Cummins; Daisy Fancourt; Jens Kandt; Paul Longley; Steve Morris; George Ploubidis; Robert Savage; Robert Aldridge; Dan Hopewell; Tiffany Yang; Dan Mason; Gillian Santorelli; Richard Romano; Maria Bryant; Liam Crosby; Trevor Sheldon Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2019-10-14
Authors: J Bailie; F Cunningham; S Abimbola; A Laycock; R Bainbridge; R Bailie; K Conte; M Passey; D Peiris Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2022-01-28
Authors: Anne C Grunseit; Erika Bohn-Goldbaum; Margaret Thomas; Rochelle Seabury; Chris Rissel; Melanie Crane Journal: Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being Date: 2021-12