Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Using evaluability assessment to assess local community development health programmes: a Scottish case-study

Authors: Melissa Belford, Tony Robertson, Ruth Jepson

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Evaluation of the potential effectiveness of a programme’s objectives (health or otherwise) is important in demonstrating how programmes work. However, evaluations are expensive and can focus on unrealistic outcomes not grounded in strong theory, especially where there is pressure to show effectiveness. The aim of this research was to demonstrate that the evaluability assessment (a cost-effective pre-evaluation tool that primarily gives quick, constructive feedback) can be used to help develop programme and outcome objectives to improve programmes while they run and to assist in producing more effective evaluations. This was done using the example of a community development programme aiming to improve health and reduce health inequalities in its target population.

Methods

The setting was Glasgow, Scotland, UK and focused on the Health Issues in the Community programme. Data were collected from documents and nine individual stakeholder interviews. Thematic analysis and a realist approach were used to analyse both datasets and, in conjunction with a workshop with stakeholders, produce a logic model of the programme theory and related evaluation options to explore further.

Results

Five main themes emerged from the analysis: History; Framework; Structure and Delivery of the Course; Theory of Action; and Barriers to Delivery and Successful Outcomes. These themes aided in drafting the logic model which revealed they key programme activities (e.g. facilitating group learning) and 23 potential outcomes. The majority of these outcomes (16) were deemed to be short-term outcomes (more easily measured within the timeframe of an individual being involved in the programme) e.g. increased self-esteem or awareness of individual/community health. The remaining 6 outcomes were deemed longer-term and included outcomes such as increased social capital and individual mental health and wellbeing.

Conclusions

We have shown that the evaluability assessment tool can be applied to the evaluation of community health programmes, providing short- and long-term outcomes that could be evaluated to demonstrate effectiveness and avoid unnecessary or poorly designed full-scale evaluations. This type of pre-evaluation method is already a useful resource for national policy evaluations, but could be a valuable evaluation tool for other regional or community health programmes.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Black D, Morris J, Smith C, Townsend P. Inequalities in health: report of a research working group. London: Department of Health and Social Security; 1980. Black D, Morris J, Smith C, Townsend P. Inequalities in health: report of a research working group. London: Department of Health and Social Security; 1980.
3.
go back to reference Acheson Report. Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health (Chair: Sir Donald Acheson). London: Stationery Office; 1998. Acheson Report. Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health (Chair: Sir Donald Acheson). London: Stationery Office; 1998.
4.
go back to reference Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. Stockholm: Institute of Futures Studies; 1992. Dahlgren G, Whitehead M. Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. Stockholm: Institute of Futures Studies; 1992.
6.
go back to reference Marmot M. Fair society healthy lives. In: Eyal N, Hurst S, Norheim O, Wikler D, editors. Inequalities in health: concepts, measures, and ethics. USA: Oxford Press; 2010. Marmot M. Fair society healthy lives. In: Eyal N, Hurst S, Norheim O, Wikler D, editors. Inequalities in health: concepts, measures, and ethics. USA: Oxford Press; 2010.
11.
go back to reference Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2003. Ch. 5. Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2003. Ch. 5.
13.
go back to reference Kreuter M. Evaluating Community-Based Collaborative Mechanisms: Implications for Practitioners. Health Promot Pract. 2000;1(1):49–63. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/152483990000100109. Accessed 16 Dec 2016. Kreuter M. Evaluating Community-Based Collaborative Mechanisms: Implications for Practitioners. Health Promot Pract. 2000;1(1):49–63. Available at: http://​journals.​sagepub.​com/​doi/​abs/​10.​1177/​1524839900001001​09. Accessed 16 Dec 2016.
15.
go back to reference Butterfoss F, Kelger M. The community coalition action theory. In: Diclemente R, Crosby R, Kelger M, editors. Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Josey-Bass; 2009. p. 237–76. Butterfoss F, Kelger M. The community coalition action theory. In: Diclemente R, Crosby R, Kelger M, editors. Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Josey-Bass; 2009. p. 237–76.
19.
go back to reference Leviton L, Khan L, Rog D, Dawkins N, Cotton D. Evaluability assessment to improve public health policies, programs, and practices *. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31(1):213–33.CrossRefPubMed Leviton L, Khan L, Rog D, Dawkins N, Cotton D. Evaluability assessment to improve public health policies, programs, and practices *. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31(1):213–33.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Jepson R, Williams A. A brief introduction to evaluability assessment. Edinburgh: SCPHRP; 2014. 1. Jepson R, Williams A. A brief introduction to evaluability assessment. Edinburgh: SCPHRP; 2014. 1.
21.
go back to reference CHEX. Health issues in the community: Evidence of impact. Scotland: NHS Health Scotland; 2014. CHEX. Health issues in the community: Evidence of impact. Scotland: NHS Health Scotland; 2014.
22.
go back to reference SCDC. Community-led health for all: Developing good practice a learning resource. Scotland: NHS Health Scotland; 2013. SCDC. Community-led health for all: Developing good practice a learning resource. Scotland: NHS Health Scotland; 2013.
23.
go back to reference Rogers P. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation. 2008;14(1):29–48.CrossRef Rogers P. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation. 2008;14(1):29–48.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hayes S, Mann M, Morgan F, Kelly M, Weightman A. Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement (Review). Cochrane Libr. 2012;10:138. Hayes S, Mann M, Morgan F, Kelly M, Weightman A. Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement (Review). Cochrane Libr. 2012;10:138.
30.
go back to reference SCDC. People and nature learning through doing: action research case study GalGael Trust. Scotland: Scottish Natural Heritage; 2011. SCDC. People and nature learning through doing: action research case study GalGael Trust. Scotland: Scottish Natural Heritage; 2011.
31.
go back to reference Milton B, Attree P, French B, Povall S, Whitehead M, Popay J. The impact of community engagement on health and social outcomes: a systematic review. Community Dev J. 2011;47(3):316–34.CrossRef Milton B, Attree P, French B, Povall S, Whitehead M, Popay J. The impact of community engagement on health and social outcomes: a systematic review. Community Dev J. 2011;47(3):316–34.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Kemp L, Chavez R, Harris-Roxas B, Burton N. What’s in the box? Issues in evaluating interventions to develop strong and open communities. Community Dev J. 2007;43(4):459–69.CrossRef Kemp L, Chavez R, Harris-Roxas B, Burton N. What’s in the box? Issues in evaluating interventions to develop strong and open communities. Community Dev J. 2007;43(4):459–69.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Abbott J. Community participation and its relationship to community development. Community Dev J. 1995;30(2):158–68.CrossRef Abbott J. Community participation and its relationship to community development. Community Dev J. 1995;30(2):158–68.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Woodall J, Raine G, South J, Warwick-Booth L. Empowerment & health and well-being: evidence review. Project Report. Leeds: Centre for Health Promotion Research, Leeds Metropolitan University; 2010. Woodall J, Raine G, South J, Warwick-Booth L. Empowerment & health and well-being: evidence review. Project Report. Leeds: Centre for Health Promotion Research, Leeds Metropolitan University; 2010.
37.
go back to reference Dale A, Newman L. Social capital: a necessary and sufficient condition for sustainable community development? Community Dev J. 2008;45(1):5–21.CrossRef Dale A, Newman L. Social capital: a necessary and sufficient condition for sustainable community development? Community Dev J. 2008;45(1):5–21.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Mezirow J. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2000. Mezirow J. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2000.
39.
go back to reference Prince M, Patel V, Saxena S, Maj M, Maselko J, Phillips M, Rahman A. No health without mental health. Lancet. 2007;370(9590):859–77.CrossRefPubMed Prince M, Patel V, Saxena S, Maj M, Maselko J, Phillips M, Rahman A. No health without mental health. Lancet. 2007;370(9590):859–77.CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Tan A. Community development theory and practice: Bridging the divide between ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ levels of social work. Botsford: North American Association of Christians in Social Work; 2009. Tan A. Community development theory and practice: Bridging the divide between ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ levels of social work. Botsford: North American Association of Christians in Social Work; 2009.
Metadata
Title
Using evaluability assessment to assess local community development health programmes: a Scottish case-study
Authors
Melissa Belford
Tony Robertson
Ruth Jepson
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0334-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2017 Go to the issue