Process Evaluations of the 5-a-Day Projects

Abstract

Process evaluation is an important, but infrequently conducted, component of evaluating the impact of health promotion interventions. The process evaluation results from the nine 5-a-Day projects were overviewed. Process evaluation helped explain some of the weaker aspects of program performance, process indicators occasionally declined over time and varied by demographic characteristics, and some process measures were related to mediating variables and program outcomes. Future development of process evaluation must include further development of concepts, more consistent and thorough conduct of process evaluation, appropriate methodological work, and assessment of the relations among the process evaluation components and the program mediators and outcomes. Further development in this area promises refinement in understanding how and why interventions achieve their effects, how best to conduct intervention programs to maximize effects, and enhancement of the internal and external validity of the studies.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Heimendinger J , Van Duyn MA , Chapelsky D , Foerster S , Stables G : The national 5 a Day for Better Health programs: A large scale nutrition intervention. J Public Health Mgmt Pract 2:27-35, 1996.

2. Havas S , Heimendinger J , Reynolds K , et al: 5-a-Day for Better Health: A new research initiative. J Am Diet Assoc 94:32-36, 1994.

3. Cook TD , Campbell DT : Quasi-Experimentation. Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago, Rand McNally, 1979.

4. Windsor RA , Baranowski T , Cutler G , Clark N : Evaluation of Health Promotion, Health Education and Disease Prevention Programs. Mountain View, CA, Mayfield, 1994.

5. McGraw SA , Stone EJ , Osganian SK , et al: Design of process evaluation within the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH). Health Educ Q 21(suppl. 2):S5-S26, 1994.

6. West SG , Aiken LS : Toward understanding individual effects in multicomponent prevention programs: Design and analysis strategies, in Bryant KJ , Windle M , West SG (eds.): The Science of Prevention, Methodological Advances From Alcohol and Substance Abuse Research. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 1997, pp. 167-209.

7. Ottoson JM , Green LW : Reconciling concept and context: A theory of implementation. Adv. Health Education & Promotion 2:353-382, 1987.

8. Dehar MA , Casswell S , Duignan P : Formative and process evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention programs. Eval Rev 17(2):204-220, 1993.

9. Israel BA , Cummings KM , Dignan MB , et al.: Evaluation of health education programs: Current assessment and future directions. Health Educ Q 22(3):364-389, 1995.

10.

10. Baranowski T , Lin LS , Wetter DW , Resnicow K , Hearn MD : Theory as mediating variables: Why aren’t community interventions working as desired? Ann Epidemiol 7:S89-S95, 1997.

11.

11. Davis M , Baranowski T , Resnicow K , Baranowski J , Doyle C , Smith M , Wang DT , Yaroch A : Gimme 5 fruit and vegetables for fun and health: Process evaluation (this issue). Health Educ Behav 27(2): 167-176, 2000.

12.

12. Reynolds KD , Franklin TA , Leviton LC , Maloy J , Harrington KF , Yaroch AL , Person S , Jester P : Methods, results, and lessons learned from process evaluation of the High 5 school-based nutrition intervention (this issue). Health Educ Behav 27(2): 177-186, 2000.

13.

13. Story M , Mays RW , Bishop DB , Perry CL , Taylor G , Smyth M , Gray C : 5-a-Day Power Plus: Process evaluation of a multicomponent elementary school program to increase fruit and vegetable consumption (this issue). Health Educ Behav 27(2): 187-200, 2000.

14.

14. Resnicow K , Davis M , Smith M , et al: How best to measure implementation of health curricula: A comparison of three measures. Health Educ Res 13:239-250, 1998.

15.

15. Nicklas TA , O’Neil C : Process of conducting a 5-a-Day intervention with high school students (this issue). Health Educ Behav 27(2): 201-212, 2000.

16.

16. Beresford SAA , Shannon J , McLerran D , Thompson B : Seattle 5-a-Day work-site project (this issue). Health Educ Behav 27(2): 213-222, 2000.

17.

17. Hunt MK , Lederman R , Potter S , Stoddard A , Sorensen G : Results of employee involvement in planning and implementing the Treatwell 5-a-Day work-site study (this issue). Health Educ Behav 27(2): 223-231, 2000.

18.

18. Buller D , Buller MK , Larkey L , Sennott-Miller L , Taren D , Aickin M , Wentzel TM , Morrill C : Implementing a 5-a-Day Peer Health Educator Program for public sector labor and trades employees (this issue). Health Educ Behav 27(2): 232-240, 2000.

19.

19. Campbell MK , Motsinger B McAdams , Ingram A , Jewell D , Makarushka C , Beatty B , Dodds J , McClelland J , Demissie S , Demark-Wahnefried W : The North Carolina Black Churches United for Better Health Project: Intervention and process evaluation (this issue). Health Educ Behav 27(2): 241-253, 2000.

20.

20. Havas S , Anliker J , Damron D , Feldman R , Langenberg P : Uses of process evaluation in the Maryland WIC 5-a-Day Promotion Program (this issue). Health Educ Behav 27(2): 254-263, 2000.