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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Evaluation Association. (1995a). Guiding principles for evaluators: A report from the AEA task force on guiding principles for evaluators. Retrieved February 29, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.eval.org.
2.
American Evaluation Association. (1995b). The program evaluation standards. Retrieved February 29, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.eval.org.
3.
Baylis, F.
, Downie, J., & Sherwin, S. (1998). Reframing research involving humans. In S. Sherwin and Feminist Healthcare Network (Eds.), The politics of women’s health: Exploring agency and autonomy (pp. 234-259). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
4.
Blackwell, B. L.
, & Cartwright, L. K. (1988). Program consultation with human services programs: A clinical perspective. Oakland, CA: Third Party Publishing.
5.
Canadian Evaluation Society (CES)
. (1996). CES guidelines for ethical conduct. Ottawa, Canada: Author. Retrieved February 29, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.evaluationcanada.ca.
6.
Crisp, B. R.
, Swerissen, H., & Duckett, S. J. (2000). Four approaches to capacity building in health: Consequences for measurement and accountability. Health Promotion International, 15(2), 99-107.
7.
Fetterman, D. M. (1999). Reflections on empowerment evaluation: Learning from experience. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation [Special issue], 5-37.
8.
Hansson, F.
(1997). Evaluation traditions in Denmark: Critical comments and perspectives. Evaluation, 3(1), 85-96.
9.
Hawe, P.
& Shiell, A. (2000). Social capital and health promotion: A review. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 1-15.
10.
Henkel, M.
(1997). Teaching quality assessments: Public accountability and academic autonomy in higher education. Evaluation, 3(1), 9-23.
11.
Koepsell, T. D.
, Wagner, E. H., Cheadle, A. C., Patrick, D. L., Martin, D. C., Diehr, P. H., et al. (1996). Selected methodological issues in evaluating community-based health promotion. In Pan American Health Organization (Eds.). Health promotion: An anthology (pp. 188-207). Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization.
12.
Learmonth, A. M.
, & Watson, N. J. (1999). Constructing evidence based health promotion: Perspectives from the field. Critical Public Health, 9(4), 317-333.
13.
McKinlay, J. B.
(1996). Health promotion through healthy public policy: The contribution of complementary research methods. In Pan American Health Organization (Eds.). Health promotion: An anthology (pp. 54-67). Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization.
14.
Medical Research Council of Canada
, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. (1998). Ottawa, Canada: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Retrieved February 29, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sshrc.ca.
15.
Resnik, S.
, Allegrante, J., & Goodman, R. (2000). Introducing our profession-wide code of ethics. Health Promotion Practice, 1(2), 113, 200-203.
16.
Rowe, A. (1999). Epilogue: Comments on this special issue. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation [Special issue], 193-197.
17.
Scott, D.
, & Weston, R. (1998). Evaluating health promotion. Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes Publishers.
18.
Seal, D. W.
, Bloom, F. R., & Somlai, A. M. (2000). Dilemmas in conducting qualitative sex research in applied field settings. Health Education & Behavior, 27(1), 10-23.
19.
Seedhouse, D.
(1997). Health promotion: Philosophy, prejudice and practice. New York: John Wiley.
20.
Smith, N. L. (1999). A framework for characterizing the practice of evaluation, with application to empowerment evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation [Special issue], 39-68.
21.
Speller, V.
, Learmonth, A., & Harrision, D. (1997). The search for evidence of effective health promotion. British Medical Journal, 315, 361-363.
22.
Thurston, W. E.
, Burgess, M. M., & Adair, C. (1999). Ethical issues in the use of computerized databases for epidemiological and other health research. Chronic Diseases in Canada, 20(3), 127-131.
23.
Thurston, W. E.
, Wilson, D. R., Felix, R., MacKean, G., & Wright, M.-F. (with Alberta Consortium for Health Promotion Research and Education). (1998). A review of the effectiveness of health promotion strategies in Alberta (Report to Alberta Health). Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Health and Wellness.
24.
Wiebe, V. J.
, MacKean, G., & Thurston, W.E. (1998). Public participation in health promotion program planning: A conceptual model. In W. E. Thurston, J. D. Sieppert, & V. J. Wiebe, (Eds.), Doing health promotion research: The science of action (pp. 161-176). Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary Health Promotion Research Group.
25.
World Health Organization
. (1986). Ottawa charter for health promotion. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
26.
World Health Organization
. (1999). Health promotion evaluation: Recommendations to policy makers. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.
