Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research article

A scoping review of evaluation frameworks and their applicability to real-world physical activity and dietary change programme evaluation

Authors: Judith F. Fynn, Wendy Hardeman, Karen Milton, Andy P. Jones

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Physical activity and dietary change programmes play a central role in addressing public health priorities. Programme evaluation contributes to the evidence-base about these programmes; and helps justify and inform policy, programme and funding decisions. A range of evaluation frameworks have been published, but there is uncertainty about their usability and applicability to different programmes and evaluation objectives, and the extent to which they are appropriate for practitioner-led or researcher-led evaluation. This review appraises the frameworks that may be applicable to evaluation of physical activity and/or dietary change programmes, and develops a typology of the frameworks to help guide decision making by practitioners, commissioners and evaluators.

Methods

A scoping review approach was used. This included a systematic search and consultation with evaluation experts to identify evaluation frameworks and to develop a set of evaluation components to appraise them. Data related to each framework’s general characteristics and components were extracted. This was used to construct a typology of the frameworks based on their intended programme type, evaluation objective and format. Each framework was then mapped against the evaluation components to generate an overview of the guidance included within each framework.

Results

The review identified 71 frameworks. These were described variously in terms of purpose, content, or applicability to different programme contexts. The mapping of frameworks highlighted areas of overlap and strengths and limitations in the available guidance. Gaps within the frameworks which may warrant further development included guidance on participatory approaches, non-health and unanticipated outcomes, wider contextual and implementation factors, and sustainability.

Conclusions

Our typology and mapping signpost to frameworks where guidance on specific components can be found, where there is overlap, and where there are gaps in the guidance. Practitioners and evaluators can use these to identify, agree upon and apply appropriate frameworks. Researchers can use them to identify evaluation components where there is already guidance available and where further development may be useful. This should help focus research efforts where it is most needed and promote the uptake and use of evaluation frameworks in practice to improve the quality of evaluation and reporting.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Public Health England. Everybody Active, Every Day: An evidence-based approach to physical activity. London: Public Health England; 2014. Public Health England. Everybody Active, Every Day: An evidence-based approach to physical activity. London: Public Health England; 2014.
2.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: more active people for a healthier world. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. World Health Organization. Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: more active people for a healthier world. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
3.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Obesity: Working with local communities. London: NICE; 2012. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Obesity: Working with local communities. London: NICE; 2012.
4.
go back to reference England S. Towards an active nation. London: Sport England; 2016. England S. Towards an active nation. London: Sport England; 2016.
5.
go back to reference HM Government. Sporting future: a new strategy for an active nation. London: Cabinet Office; 2015. HM Government. Sporting future: a new strategy for an active nation. London: Cabinet Office; 2015.
6.
go back to reference Public Health England. A Guide to Community-Centred Approaches to Health and Well-being Full Report. London; 2015. Contract No.: 2014711. Public Health England. A Guide to Community-Centred Approaches to Health and Well-being Full Report. London; 2015. Contract No.: 2014711.
7.
go back to reference Lobo R, Petrich M, Burns SK. Supporting health promotion practitioners to undertake evaluation for program development. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1315.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Lobo R, Petrich M, Burns SK. Supporting health promotion practitioners to undertake evaluation for program development. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1315.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Honeycutt S, Hermstad A, Carvalho ML, Arriola KRJ, Ballard D, Escoffery C, et al. Practice to evidence: using Evaluability assessment to generate practice-based evidence in rural South Georgia. Health Educ Behav. 2017;44(3):454–62.PubMedCrossRef Honeycutt S, Hermstad A, Carvalho ML, Arriola KRJ, Ballard D, Escoffery C, et al. Practice to evidence: using Evaluability assessment to generate practice-based evidence in rural South Georgia. Health Educ Behav. 2017;44(3):454–62.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Li V, Carter SM, Rychetnik L. Evidence valued and used by health promotion practitioners. Health Educ Res. 2015;2:193.CrossRef Li V, Carter SM, Rychetnik L. Evidence valued and used by health promotion practitioners. Health Educ Res. 2015;2:193.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lee RG, Garvin T. Moving from information transfer to information exchange in health and health care. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:449–64.PubMedCrossRef Lee RG, Garvin T. Moving from information transfer to information exchange in health and health care. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:449–64.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Rychetnik L, Bauman A, Laws R, King L, Rissel C, Nutbeam D, et al. Translating research for evidence-based public health: key concepts and future directions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1187–92.PubMedCrossRef Rychetnik L, Bauman A, Laws R, King L, Rissel C, Nutbeam D, et al. Translating research for evidence-based public health: key concepts and future directions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1187–92.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Cooper C, et al. Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;68(2):101–2.CrossRef Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Cooper C, et al. Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015;68(2):101–2.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Habicht JP, Victora CG, Vaughan JP. Evaluation designs for adequacy, plausibility and probability of public health programme performance and impact. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28(1):10–8.PubMedCrossRef Habicht JP, Victora CG, Vaughan JP. Evaluation designs for adequacy, plausibility and probability of public health programme performance and impact. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28(1):10–8.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Wimbush E, Watson J. An Evaluation framework for health promotion: theory. Quality and Effectiveness Evaluation. 2000;6(3):301–21. Wimbush E, Watson J. An Evaluation framework for health promotion: theory. Quality and Effectiveness Evaluation. 2000;6(3):301–21.
15.
go back to reference Milstein B, Wetterhall S. A framework featuring steps and standards for program Evaluation. Health Promot Pract. 2000;1(3):221–8.CrossRef Milstein B, Wetterhall S. A framework featuring steps and standards for program Evaluation. Health Promot Pract. 2000;1(3):221–8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Cavill N, Roberts K, Rutter H. Standard Evaluation framework for physical activity interventions. Oxford: National Obesity Observatory; 2012. Cavill N, Roberts K, Rutter H. Standard Evaluation framework for physical activity interventions. Oxford: National Obesity Observatory; 2012.
17.
go back to reference Cavill N, Roberts K, Rutter H. Standard Evaluation framework for dietary interventions. Oxford: National Obesity Observatory; 2012. Cavill N, Roberts K, Rutter H. Standard Evaluation framework for dietary interventions. Oxford: National Obesity Observatory; 2012.
18.
go back to reference Roberts K, Cavill N, Rutter H. Standard Evaluation framework for weight management interventions. London: National Obesity Observatory; 2009. Roberts K, Cavill N, Rutter H. Standard Evaluation framework for weight management interventions. London: National Obesity Observatory; 2009.
19.
go back to reference Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 1997. Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 1997.
21.
go back to reference Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10.
22.
go back to reference Davies JK, Sherriff N. The gradient in health inequalities among families and children: a review of evaluation frameworks. Health Policy. 2011;101(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRef Davies JK, Sherriff N. The gradient in health inequalities among families and children: a review of evaluation frameworks. Health Policy. 2011;101(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Chambers AH, Kolbe A, Murphy K. Designs and methods used in published Australian health promotion evaluations. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1992-2011;2015:222–6. Chambers AH, Kolbe A, Murphy K. Designs and methods used in published Australian health promotion evaluations. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1992-2011;2015:222–6.
24.
go back to reference Lim MSC, Wright CJC, Carrotte ER, Pedrana AE. Reach, engagement, and effectiveness: a systematic review of evaluation methodologies used in health promotion via social networking sites. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2016;27(3):187–97.PubMedCrossRef Lim MSC, Wright CJC, Carrotte ER, Pedrana AE. Reach, engagement, and effectiveness: a systematic review of evaluation methodologies used in health promotion via social networking sites. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2016;27(3):187–97.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Milat A, Li B. Narrative review of frameworks for translating research evidence into policy and practice. Public Health Research & Practice. 2017;27(1):e2711704.CrossRef Milat A, Li B. Narrative review of frameworks for translating research evidence into policy and practice. Public Health Research & Practice. 2017;27(1):e2711704.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Escoffery C, Lebow-Skelley E, Udelson H, Böing EA, Wood R, Fernandez ME, et al. A scoping study of frameworks for adapting public health evidence-based interventions. Transl Behav Med. 2018;9(1):1–10.PubMedCentralCrossRef Escoffery C, Lebow-Skelley E, Udelson H, Böing EA, Wood R, Fernandez ME, et al. A scoping study of frameworks for adapting public health evidence-based interventions. Transl Behav Med. 2018;9(1):1–10.PubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Denford S, Abraham C, Callaghan M, Aighton P, De Vocht F, Arris S. A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guiance relevant to public health interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:643.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Denford S, Abraham C, Callaghan M, Aighton P, De Vocht F, Arris S. A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guiance relevant to public health interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:643.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2009;26(2):91–108.CrossRef Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2009;26(2):91–108.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, K.K. OB, Colquhoun H, Levac D. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, K.K. OB, Colquhoun H, Levac D. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.
33.
go back to reference Bauman A, Nutbeam D. Evaluation in a nutshell: McGraw-hill education Australia; 2013. Bauman A, Nutbeam D. Evaluation in a nutshell: McGraw-hill education Australia; 2013.
34.
go back to reference Judd J, Frankish CJ, Moulton G. Setting standards in the evaluation of community-based health promotion programmes— a unifying approach. Health Promot Int. 2001;16(4):367–80.PubMedCrossRef Judd J, Frankish CJ, Moulton G. Setting standards in the evaluation of community-based health promotion programmes— a unifying approach. Health Promot Int. 2001;16(4):367–80.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C. Hardeman W, et al. UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Gudiance: Process Evaluation of Complex Interventions; 2015. Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C. Hardeman W, et al. UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Gudiance: Process Evaluation of Complex Interventions; 2015.
36.
go back to reference Vatcharavongvan P, Hepworth J, Marley J. The application of the parallel track model in community health promotion: a literature review. Health and Social Care in the Community. 2013;21(4):352–63.PubMedCrossRef Vatcharavongvan P, Hepworth J, Marley J. The application of the parallel track model in community health promotion: a literature review. Health and Social Care in the Community. 2013;21(4):352–63.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Dauphinee WD. The role of theory-based outcome frameworks in program evaluation: considering the case of contribution analysis. Medical Teacher. 2015;37(11):979–82.PubMedCrossRef Dauphinee WD. The role of theory-based outcome frameworks in program evaluation: considering the case of contribution analysis. Medical Teacher. 2015;37(11):979–82.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Ory MG, Altpeter M, Belza B, Helduser J, Zhang C, Smith ML. Perceived utility of the RE-AIM framework for health promotion/disease prevention initiatives for older adults: A case study from the U.S. evidence-based disease prevention initiative. Frontiers in Public Health. 2015;2(143). Ory MG, Altpeter M, Belza B, Helduser J, Zhang C, Smith ML. Perceived utility of the RE-AIM framework for health promotion/disease prevention initiatives for older adults: A case study from the U.S. evidence-based disease prevention initiative. Frontiers in Public Health. 2015;2(143).
39.
go back to reference McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A. Glanz KJHeq. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. 1988;15(4):351–77. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A. Glanz KJHeq. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. 1988;15(4):351–77.
40.
go back to reference Kramer L, Schwartz P, Cheadle A, Rauzon S. Using Photovoice as a participatory Evaluation tool in Kaiser Permanente's community health initiative. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14(5):686–94.PubMedCrossRef Kramer L, Schwartz P, Cheadle A, Rauzon S. Using Photovoice as a participatory Evaluation tool in Kaiser Permanente's community health initiative. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14(5):686–94.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Davis LA, Morgan SE, Mobley AR. The utility of the memorable messages framework as an intermediary Evaluation tool for fruit and vegetable consumption in a nutrition education program. Health Education and Behavior. 2015;43(3):321–7.PubMedCrossRef Davis LA, Morgan SE, Mobley AR. The utility of the memorable messages framework as an intermediary Evaluation tool for fruit and vegetable consumption in a nutrition education program. Health Education and Behavior. 2015;43(3):321–7.PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Smith LT, Johnson DB, Lamson E, Sitaker M. A framework for developing evaluation tools used in Washington State's Healthy Communities projects. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2006;3(2). Smith LT, Johnson DB, Lamson E, Sitaker M. A framework for developing evaluation tools used in Washington State's Healthy Communities projects. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2006;3(2).
43.
go back to reference Lubans DR, Lonsdale C, Cohen K, Eather N, Beauchamp MR, Morgan PJ, et al. Framework for the design and delivery of organized physical activity sessions for children and adolescents: Rationale and description of the 'SAAFE' teaching principles. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2017;14(24). Lubans DR, Lonsdale C, Cohen K, Eather N, Beauchamp MR, Morgan PJ, et al. Framework for the design and delivery of organized physical activity sessions for children and adolescents: Rationale and description of the 'SAAFE' teaching principles. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2017;14(24).
44.
go back to reference Angeles RN, Dolovich L, Kaczorowski J, Thabane L. Developing a theoretical framework for complex community-based interventions. Health Promot Pract. 2014;15(1):100–8.PubMedCrossRef Angeles RN, Dolovich L, Kaczorowski J, Thabane L. Developing a theoretical framework for complex community-based interventions. Health Promot Pract. 2014;15(1):100–8.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Laverack G, Labonte R. A planning framework for community empowerment goals within health promotion. Health Policy Plan. 2000;15(3):255–62.PubMedCrossRef Laverack G, Labonte R. A planning framework for community empowerment goals within health promotion. Health Policy Plan. 2000;15(3):255–62.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health Promotion Planning : An Educational and Environmental Approach 2nd ed. Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Co.; 1991. Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health Promotion Planning : An Educational and Environmental Approach 2nd ed. Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Co.; 1991.
47.
go back to reference Bartholomew LK, G.S. P, Kok G, Gottlieb NH. Planning Health Promotion Programs : An Intervention Mapping Approach: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated; 2006. Bartholomew LK, G.S. P, Kok G, Gottlieb NH. Planning Health Promotion Programs : An Intervention Mapping Approach: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated; 2006.
48.
go back to reference W K Kellogg Foundation. Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek Michigan: WK Kellogg Foundation; 2004. W K Kellogg Foundation. Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek Michigan: WK Kellogg Foundation; 2004.
49.
go back to reference Poland B, Krupa G, McCall D. Settings for health promotion: an analytic framework to guide intervention design and implementation. Health Promot Pract. 2009;10(4):505–16.PubMedCrossRef Poland B, Krupa G, McCall D. Settings for health promotion: an analytic framework to guide intervention design and implementation. Health Promot Pract. 2009;10(4):505–16.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Vanderkruik R, McPherson ME. A contextual factors framework to inform implementation and Evaluation of public health initiatives. Am J Eval. 2017;38(3):348–59.CrossRef Vanderkruik R, McPherson ME. A contextual factors framework to inform implementation and Evaluation of public health initiatives. Am J Eval. 2017;38(3):348–59.CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Crosby R, Noar SM. What is a planning model? An introduction to PRECEDE-PROCEED. J Public Health Dent. 2011;71(SUPPL. 1):S7–S15.PubMedCrossRef Crosby R, Noar SM. What is a planning model? An introduction to PRECEDE-PROCEED. J Public Health Dent. 2011;71(SUPPL. 1):S7–S15.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Framework for program evaluation in public health. 1999;48(RR-11). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Framework for program evaluation in public health. 1999;48(RR-11).
53.
go back to reference Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. Medical Research Council; 2008. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. Medical Research Council; 2008.
54.
go back to reference Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. British Medical Journal. 2008;337( e1655). Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. British Medical Journal. 2008;337( e1655).
55.
go back to reference Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Cooper C, et al. Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies. British Medical Journal. 2015;2015, 350:h1258(2):101–2. Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Cooper C, et al. Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies. British Medical Journal. 2015;2015, 350:h1258(2):101–2.
56.
go back to reference Douthwaite B, Alvarez S, Thiele G, Mackay R. Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis: A practical method for project planning and evaluation. The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC); 2008. Contract No.: Brief 17 May 2008. Douthwaite B, Alvarez S, Thiele G, Mackay R. Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis: A practical method for project planning and evaluation. The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC); 2008. Contract No.: Brief 17 May 2008.
58.
go back to reference Israel BA, Cummings KM, Dignan MB, Heaney CA, Perales DP, Simons-Morton BG, et al. Evaluation of health education programs: current assessment and future directions. Health Educ Q. 1995;22(3):364–89.PubMedCrossRef Israel BA, Cummings KM, Dignan MB, Heaney CA, Perales DP, Simons-Morton BG, et al. Evaluation of health education programs: current assessment and future directions. Health Educ Q. 1995;22(3):364–89.PubMedCrossRef
59.
go back to reference Poland BD. Knowledge development and evaluation in, of and for healthy community initiatives. Part I: guiding principles. Health Promot Int. 1996;11(3):237–47.CrossRef Poland BD. Knowledge development and evaluation in, of and for healthy community initiatives. Part I: guiding principles. Health Promot Int. 1996;11(3):237–47.CrossRef
60.
go back to reference Hawe P, Dageling D, Hall J. Evaluating health promotion: a health workers guide. Maclennan & Petty Pty Ltd: Sydney; 1990. Hawe P, Dageling D, Hall J. Evaluating health promotion: a health workers guide. Maclennan & Petty Pty Ltd: Sydney; 1990.
61.
go back to reference Patton M. Utilization-focused evaluation: the new century text. London SAGE. 1997. Patton M. Utilization-focused evaluation: the new century text. London SAGE. 1997.
62.
go back to reference Brännström IA, Persson LÅM, Wall SI. Towards a framework for outcome assessment of health intervention: conceptual and methodological considerations. Eur J Pub Health. 1994;4(2):125–30.CrossRef Brännström IA, Persson LÅM, Wall SI. Towards a framework for outcome assessment of health intervention: conceptual and methodological considerations. Eur J Pub Health. 1994;4(2):125–30.CrossRef
63.
go back to reference Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G. Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory- and evidence-based health education programs. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25. Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G. Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory- and evidence-based health education programs. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25.
64.
go back to reference Sanderson C, Haglund BJA, Tillgren P, Svanström L, Östenson CG, Holm LE, et al. Effect and stage models in community intervention programmes; and the development of the model for management of intervention programme preparation (MMIPP). Health Promot Int. 1996;11(2):143–56.CrossRef Sanderson C, Haglund BJA, Tillgren P, Svanström L, Östenson CG, Holm LE, et al. Effect and stage models in community intervention programmes; and the development of the model for management of intervention programme preparation (MMIPP). Health Promot Int. 1996;11(2):143–56.CrossRef
65.
go back to reference Nutbeam D. Evaluating health promotion—Progress. Problems and solutions Health Promotion International. 1998;13(1):27–44.CrossRef Nutbeam D. Evaluating health promotion—Progress. Problems and solutions Health Promotion International. 1998;13(1):27–44.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference Goodman RM. Principles and tools for evaluating community-based prevention and health promotion programs. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 1998;4(2):37–47.PubMedCrossRef Goodman RM. Principles and tools for evaluating community-based prevention and health promotion programs. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 1998;4(2):37–47.PubMedCrossRef
67.
go back to reference Kegler MC, Twiss JM, Look V. Assessing community change at multiple levels: the genesis of an evaluation framework for the California healthy cities project. Health Education and Behavior. 2000;27(6):760–79.PubMedCrossRef Kegler MC, Twiss JM, Look V. Assessing community change at multiple levels: the genesis of an evaluation framework for the California healthy cities project. Health Education and Behavior. 2000;27(6):760–79.PubMedCrossRef
68.
go back to reference Wallerstein N, Polascek M, Maltrud K. Participatory evaluation model for coalitions: the development of system indicators. Health Promot Pract. 2002;3(3):361–73.CrossRef Wallerstein N, Polascek M, Maltrud K. Participatory evaluation model for coalitions: the development of system indicators. Health Promot Pract. 2002;3(3):361–73.CrossRef
69.
go back to reference Wallerstein N. A participatory evaluation model for healthier communities: developing indicators for New Mexico. Public Health Rep. 2000;115(2–3):199–204.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Wallerstein N. A participatory evaluation model for healthier communities: developing indicators for New Mexico. Public Health Rep. 2000;115(2–3):199–204.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
70.
go back to reference Rootman I, Goodstadt M, Hyndman B, McQueen DV, Potvin L, Springett J, et al. Evaluation in health promotion: principles and perspectives Geneva: WHO regional publications European series; 2001. Rootman I, Goodstadt M, Hyndman B, McQueen DV, Potvin L, Springett J, et al. Evaluation in health promotion: principles and perspectives Geneva: WHO regional publications European series; 2001.
71.
go back to reference Harris R, Hardman E. A formative model of service evaluation. Journal of Clinical Excellence. 2001;3(2):69–73. Harris R, Hardman E. A formative model of service evaluation. Journal of Clinical Excellence. 2001;3(2):69–73.
72.
go back to reference O'Connor-Fleming ML, Parker E, Higgins H, Gould T. A framework for evaluating health promotion programs. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2006;17(1):61–6.PubMedCrossRef O'Connor-Fleming ML, Parker E, Higgins H, Gould T. A framework for evaluating health promotion programs. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2006;17(1):61–6.PubMedCrossRef
73.
go back to reference Steckler AB, Linnan L. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass; 2002. Steckler AB, Linnan L. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass; 2002.
74.
go back to reference Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a process-Evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6(2):134–47.PubMedCrossRef Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a process-Evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6(2):134–47.PubMedCrossRef
75.
go back to reference Baranowski T, Stables G. Process evaluations of the 5-a-day projects. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(2):157–66.PubMedCrossRef Baranowski T, Stables G. Process evaluations of the 5-a-day projects. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(2):157–66.PubMedCrossRef
76.
go back to reference Beery WL, Senter S, Cheadle A, Greenwald HP, Pearson D, Brousseau R, et al. Evaluating the legacy of community health initiatives: a conceptual framework and example from the California Wellness Foundation's health improvement initiative. Am J Eval. 2005;26(2):150–65.CrossRef Beery WL, Senter S, Cheadle A, Greenwald HP, Pearson D, Brousseau R, et al. Evaluating the legacy of community health initiatives: a conceptual framework and example from the California Wellness Foundation's health improvement initiative. Am J Eval. 2005;26(2):150–65.CrossRef
77.
go back to reference Chinman M, Imm P, Wandersman A, Kaftarian S, Neal J, Pendleton K, et al. Using the getting to outcomes (GTO) model in a statewide prevention initiative. Health Promot Pract. 2001;2(4):302–9.CrossRef Chinman M, Imm P, Wandersman A, Kaftarian S, Neal J, Pendleton K, et al. Using the getting to outcomes (GTO) model in a statewide prevention initiative. Health Promot Pract. 2001;2(4):302–9.CrossRef
78.
go back to reference Butterfoss FD, Francisco VT. Evaluating community partnerships and coalitions with practitioners in mind. Health Promot Pract. 2004;5(2):108–14.PubMedCrossRef Butterfoss FD, Francisco VT. Evaluating community partnerships and coalitions with practitioners in mind. Health Promot Pract. 2004;5(2):108–14.PubMedCrossRef
79.
go back to reference Themessl-Huber M, Lazenbatt Anne A, Taylor J. Overcoming health inequalities: a participative evaluation framework fit for the task. J R Soc Promot Health. 2008;128(3):117–22.PubMedCrossRef Themessl-Huber M, Lazenbatt Anne A, Taylor J. Overcoming health inequalities: a participative evaluation framework fit for the task. J R Soc Promot Health. 2008;128(3):117–22.PubMedCrossRef
80.
go back to reference Jolley G, Lawless A, Hurley C. Framework and tools for planning and evaluating community participation, collaborative partnerships and equity in health promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2008;19(2):152–7.PubMedCrossRef Jolley G, Lawless A, Hurley C. Framework and tools for planning and evaluating community participation, collaborative partnerships and equity in health promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2008;19(2):152–7.PubMedCrossRef
82.
go back to reference Kruger DJ, Morrel-Samuels S, Davis-Satterla L, Harris-Ellis BJ, Slonim A. Developing a cross-site Evaluation tool for diverse health interventions. Health Promot Pract. 2010;11(4):555–61.PubMedCrossRef Kruger DJ, Morrel-Samuels S, Davis-Satterla L, Harris-Ellis BJ, Slonim A. Developing a cross-site Evaluation tool for diverse health interventions. Health Promot Pract. 2010;11(4):555–61.PubMedCrossRef
83.
go back to reference Brandstetter S, Curbach J, Lindacher V, Rueter J, Warrelmann B, Loss J. Empowerment for healthy nutrition in German communities: a study framework. Health Promot Int. 2017;32(3):500–10.PubMed Brandstetter S, Curbach J, Lindacher V, Rueter J, Warrelmann B, Loss J. Empowerment for healthy nutrition in German communities: a study framework. Health Promot Int. 2017;32(3):500–10.PubMed
84.
go back to reference Jolley G. Evaluating complex community-based health promotion: addressing the challenges. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2014;45:71–81.PubMedCrossRef Jolley G. Evaluating complex community-based health promotion: addressing the challenges. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2014;45:71–81.PubMedCrossRef
85.
go back to reference Dunne A, Scriven A, Howe A. Research partnership and knowledge transfer in the development of a generic evaluation toolkit for health promotion interventions. Translational Research for Primary Healthcare2012. p. 147–160. Dunne A, Scriven A, Howe A. Research partnership and knowledge transfer in the development of a generic evaluation toolkit for health promotion interventions. Translational Research for Primary Healthcare2012. p. 147–160.
86.
go back to reference Aarestrup AK, Jørgensen TS, Due P, Krølner R. A six-step protocol to systematic process evaluation of multicomponent cluster-randomised health promoting interventions illustrated by the boost study. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2014;46:58–71.PubMedCrossRef Aarestrup AK, Jørgensen TS, Due P, Krølner R. A six-step protocol to systematic process evaluation of multicomponent cluster-randomised health promoting interventions illustrated by the boost study. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2014;46:58–71.PubMedCrossRef
87.
go back to reference Wagemakers A, Koelen MA, Lezwijn J, Vaandrager L. Coordinated action checklist: a tool for partnerships to facilitate and evaluate community health promotion. Glob Health Promot. 2010;17(3):17–28.PubMedCrossRef Wagemakers A, Koelen MA, Lezwijn J, Vaandrager L. Coordinated action checklist: a tool for partnerships to facilitate and evaluate community health promotion. Glob Health Promot. 2010;17(3):17–28.PubMedCrossRef
88.
go back to reference Masso M, Quinsey K, Fildes D. Evolution of a multilevel framework for health program evaluation. Aust Health Rev. 2017;41(3):239–45.PubMedCrossRef Masso M, Quinsey K, Fildes D. Evolution of a multilevel framework for health program evaluation. Aust Health Rev. 2017;41(3):239–45.PubMedCrossRef
89.
go back to reference Mantziki K, Renders CM, Westerman MJ, Mayer J, Borys JM, Seidell JC. Tools for a systematic appraisal of integrated community-based approaches to prevent childhood obesity. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1). Mantziki K, Renders CM, Westerman MJ, Mayer J, Borys JM, Seidell JC. Tools for a systematic appraisal of integrated community-based approaches to prevent childhood obesity. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1).
90.
go back to reference Hoddinott P, Allan K, Avenell A, Britten J. Group interventions to improve health outcomes: a framework for their design and delivery. BMC Public Health. 2010;10. Hoddinott P, Allan K, Avenell A, Britten J. Group interventions to improve health outcomes: a framework for their design and delivery. BMC Public Health. 2010;10.
91.
go back to reference Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14:15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14:15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
92.
go back to reference Wagemakers A, Vaandrager L, Koelen MA, Saan H, Leeuwis C. Community health promotion: a framework to facilitate and evaluate supportive social environments for health. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2010;33(4):428–35.PubMedCrossRef Wagemakers A, Vaandrager L, Koelen MA, Saan H, Leeuwis C. Community health promotion: a framework to facilitate and evaluate supportive social environments for health. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2010;33(4):428–35.PubMedCrossRef
93.
go back to reference Goldsmith R, Harris S. Thinking inside the box: the health cube paradigm for health and wellness program Evaluation and design. Population Health Management. 2013;16(5):291–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Goldsmith R, Harris S. Thinking inside the box: the health cube paradigm for health and wellness program Evaluation and design. Population Health Management. 2013;16(5):291–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
94.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Health promotion Evaluation: recommendations to policy-makers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998. World Health Organization. Health promotion Evaluation: recommendations to policy-makers. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.
95.
go back to reference W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The Step-by-Step Guide to Evaluation USA: W.K. Kellogg Foundation; 2017. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The Step-by-Step Guide to Evaluation USA: W.K. Kellogg Foundation; 2017.
98.
go back to reference The Centre for the Advancement of Community Based Public Health. An Evaluation Framework for Community Health Programs. Durham, NC.; 2000. The Centre for the Advancement of Community Based Public Health. An Evaluation Framework for Community Health Programs. Durham, NC.; 2000.
99.
go back to reference Dugdill L, Stratton G. Evaluating sport and physical activity interventions: a guide for practitioners: University of Salford; 2007. Dugdill L, Stratton G. Evaluating sport and physical activity interventions: a guide for practitioners: University of Salford; 2007.
102.
go back to reference US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Evaluation Handbook. Atlanta GA; 2002. US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Evaluation Handbook. Atlanta GA; 2002.
105.
go back to reference Leeman J, Sommers J, Vu M, Jernigan J, Payne G, Thompson D, et al. An evaluation framework for obesity prevention policy interventions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9. Leeman J, Sommers J, Vu M, Jernigan J, Payne G, Thompson D, et al. An evaluation framework for obesity prevention policy interventions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9.
107.
108.
go back to reference Cavill N, Roberts K, Ells L. Evaluation of weight management, physical activity and dietary interventions: an introductory guide. Oxford: Public Health England; 2015. Cavill N, Roberts K, Ells L. Evaluation of weight management, physical activity and dietary interventions: an introductory guide. Oxford: Public Health England; 2015.
109.
go back to reference HM Treasury. The Magenta book: guidance for Evaluation. London: HM Treasury; 2011. HM Treasury. The Magenta book: guidance for Evaluation. London: HM Treasury; 2011.
111.
go back to reference Prevention and Population Health Branch. Evaluation framework for health promotion and disease prevention programs. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services; 2011. Available from: https://www2.health.vic.gov.au. Prevention and Population Health Branch. Evaluation framework for health promotion and disease prevention programs. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services; 2011. Available from: https://​www2.​health.​vic.​gov.​au.
113.
go back to reference Pérez-Escamilla R, Segura-Pérez S, Damio G. Applying the program impact pathways (PIP) evaluation framework to school-based healthy lifestyles programs: workshop Evaluation manual. Food Nutr Bull. 2014;35:S97–S107.PubMedCrossRef Pérez-Escamilla R, Segura-Pérez S, Damio G. Applying the program impact pathways (PIP) evaluation framework to school-based healthy lifestyles programs: workshop Evaluation manual. Food Nutr Bull. 2014;35:S97–S107.PubMedCrossRef
115.
go back to reference Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, Haw S, Lawson K, Macintyre S, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1182–6.PubMedCrossRef Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, Haw S, Lawson K, Macintyre S, et al. Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(12):1182–6.PubMedCrossRef
116.
go back to reference Hand RK, Abram JK, Brown K, Ziegler PJ, Parrott JS, Steiber AL. Development and validation of the guide for effective nutrition interventions and education (GENIE): a tool for assessing the quality of proposed nutrition education programs. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2015;47(4):308–16.PubMedCrossRef Hand RK, Abram JK, Brown K, Ziegler PJ, Parrott JS, Steiber AL. Development and validation of the guide for effective nutrition interventions and education (GENIE): a tool for assessing the quality of proposed nutrition education programs. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2015;47(4):308–16.PubMedCrossRef
117.
go back to reference Abram JK, Hand RK, Parrott JS, Brown K, Ziegler PJ, Steiber AL. From the academy: what is your nutrition program missing? Finding answers with the guide for effective nutrition interventions and education (GENIE). J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115:122–30.PubMedCrossRef Abram JK, Hand RK, Parrott JS, Brown K, Ziegler PJ, Steiber AL. From the academy: what is your nutrition program missing? Finding answers with the guide for effective nutrition interventions and education (GENIE). J Acad Nutr Diet. 2015;115:122–30.PubMedCrossRef
118.
go back to reference Smith BJ, Rissel C, Shilton T, Bauman A. Advancing evaluation practice in health promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2016;27(3):184–6.PubMedCrossRef Smith BJ, Rissel C, Shilton T, Bauman A. Advancing evaluation practice in health promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2016;27(3):184–6.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A scoping review of evaluation frameworks and their applicability to real-world physical activity and dietary change programme evaluation
Authors
Judith F. Fynn
Wendy Hardeman
Karen Milton
Andy P. Jones
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09062-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Public Health 1/2020 Go to the issue