The Degree of Planning: An Indicator of the Potential Success of Health Education Programs

Abstract

Evaluation is a major challenge in the field of health promotion and health education. Since the degree to which a project is planned often guarantees its potential success, the evaluation process should make it possible to answer different questions related to stages of project implementation. The goal of this study was to develop a planning tool to help health professionals and community workers judge the potential success of health education interventions based on the extent to which they are planned and to test the tool in real intervention evaluations. Educational interventions examined in this study were targeted primarily at the promotion and adoption of behaviour reducing the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission. The conceptual framework of “intervention mapping” served as the basis for developing the tool. Experts were consulted to identify criteria that would make it possible to evaluate the extent to which different stages of the model were accomplished. The tool was tested for reliability. Data from 123 projects were then collected and analyzed. The process for the development of the tool made it possible to identify 40 planning criteria, broken down into the 19 tasks of intervention mapping model. Reliability test results were highly satisfactory. The overall average score for project planning was 12.7 out of 40. The degree to which different stages were planned varied considerably. For example, only 15% of projects had developed their objective matrices properly, whereas 80% were assured proper support for their implementation. Thirty-nine percent of the projects were satisfactorily available for evaluation. This exercise made it possible to construct an interesting tool for identifying strengths and weaknesses of intervention planning. Various promoters might find this tool useful for increasing the potential success of their initiatives.

Keywords

evaluation health education intervention mapping

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bartholomew

L.K.

Parcel

G.S.

, & Kok

(1998) “Intervention Mapping. A Process for Developing Theory and Evidence-Based.” Health Education & Behavior vol. 25, pp. 545–563.

Bartholomew

L.K.

Parcel

G.S.

Kok

, & Gottlieb

. (2001). Intervention Mapping: Designing Theory and Evidence-Based Health Promotion Programs. McGraw Hill, New York.

Caron

Godin

Otis

, & Lambert

(2004) “Evaluation of a Theoretically-based AIDS/STD Peer Education Program on Postponing Sexual Intercourse and Condom Use among Adolescents Attending High School.” Health Education Research vol. 19, pp. 185–197.

Delbecq

van de ven

, & Gustafson

(1975). Group Technique for Program Planning. A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Scott, Foresman & Company, Glenview, Illinois.

Fetterman

D.M.

, & Wandersman

(2004). Empowerment Evaluation: Principles in Practice. Guilford Publication, New-York.

Godin

Michaud

Alary

Otis

Masse

Fortin

Gagnon

M.R.

, & Gagnon

(2003) “Evaluation of an HIV and STD Prevention Program for Adolescents in Juvenile Rehabilitation Centers.” Health Education and Behavior vol. 30, pp. 601–614.

Green

L.W.

, & Kreuter

M.W.

(1999). Health Promotion and Planning: An Educational and ecological approach, 3rd ed. Mayfield, Mountain View. CA.

Hayashi

S.W.

, Huang

Harmon

Velez

Duncan

(2004). The implementation of a logic model developed by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs that build human capacity in community service organizations for HIV prevention. International Conference on AIDS. July 11–16.; 15: abstract no. TuPeE5566.

Johnson

Hedges

Ramirez

Semaan

Norman

Sogolow

Sweat

, & Diaz

(2002) “HIV Prevention Research for Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome vol. 30, pp. S118–S129.

10.

Kok

Schaalma

Ruiter

van Empelen

, & Brug

(2004) “Intervention Mapping: Protocol for Applying Health Psychology Theory Prevention Programmes.” Journal of Health Psychology vol. 9, pp. 85–98.

11.

McQueen

D.V.

, & Anderson

L.M.

(2001) “What Counts as Evidence: Issues and Debates” In Rootman

Goodstadt

Hyndman

McQueen

D.V.

Potvin

Springett

, & Siglio

(2001) Evaluation in Health Promotion: Principles and Perspectives. WHO Regional publications, Copenhague.

12.

Molleman

(1999). “Implementing the Preffi: The use of guidelines for practitioners in the Netherlands.” In Norheim

Waller

(ed.) Best Practices: A selection of papers on Quality and Effectiveness and Quality of Health Promotion. May 16–19, Helsinki, Talinn, pp 219–230.

13.

Molleman

G.R.M.

Ploeg

M.A.

Hosman

C.M.H.

Peters

(2004). Preffi 2.0: un outil néerlandais pour analyser l'efficacité des interventions en promotion de la santé. Promotion & Education. Hors série 1.

14.

Patton

M.Q.

(2001) “Evaluation, Knowledge Management, Best Practices and High Quality Lessons Learned.” American Journal of Evaluation vol. 22, pp. 329–336.

15.

Rootman

Goodstadt

Potvin

, & Springett

(2001) “A Framework for HealthPromotion Evaluation” In Rootman, I., Goodstadt, M., Hyndman, B., McQueen, D.V.,

16.

Potvin

Springett

, and Siglio

(2001). Evaluation in Health Promotion: Principles and Perspective. WHO Regional publications, Copenhague.

17.

van Empelen

Kok

van Kesteren

van den Borne

Bos

, & Schaalma

x-risk among Drug Users: A Review of Psychosocial Interventions.”

Social Science & Medicine vol. 57, pp. 1593–1608.