Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Improving public health evaluation: a qualitative investigation of practitioners' needs

Authors: Sarah Denford, Rajalakshmi Lakshman, Margaret Callaghan, Charles Abraham

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In 2011, the House of Lords published a report on Behaviour Change, in which they report that “a lot more could, and should, be done to improve the evaluation of interventions.” This study aimed to undertake a needs assessment of what kind of evaluation training and materials would be of most use to UK public health practitioners by conducting interviews with practitioners about everyday evaluation practice and needed guidance and materials.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 public health practitioners in two UK regions, Cambridgeshire and the South West. Participants included directors of public health, consultants in public health, health improvement advisors, public health intelligence, and public health research officers. A topic guide included questions designed to explore participants existing evaluation practice and their needs for further training and guidance. Data were analysed using thematic analyses.

Results

Practitioners highlighted the need for evaluation to defend the effectiveness of existing programs and protect funding provisions. However, practitioners often lacked training in evaluation, and felt unqualified to perform such a task. The majority of practitioners did not use, or were not aware of many existing evaluation guidance documents. They wanted quality-assured, practical guidance that relate to the real world settings in which they operate. Practitioners also mentioned the need for better links and support from academics in public health.

Conclusion

Whilst numerous guidance documents supporting public health evaluation exist, these documents are currently underused by practitioners – either because they are not considered useful, or because practitioners are not aware of them. Integrating existing guides into a catalogue of guidance documents, and developing a new-quality assured, practical and useful document may support the evaluation of public health programs. This in turn has the potential to identify those programs that are effective; thus improving public health and reducing financial waste.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Whitehead M, Dahlgren G. What can be done about inequalities in health? Lancet. 1991;338(8774):1059–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)91911-DCrossRefPubMed Whitehead M, Dahlgren G. What can be done about inequalities in health? Lancet. 1991;338(8774):1059–63. http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0140-6736(91)91911-DCrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Bartholomew Eldredge LK, Markham CM, Ruiter RAC, Fernández ME, Kok G, Parcel GS. Planning health promotion programmes an intervention mapping approach. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2016. Bartholomew Eldredge LK, Markham CM, Ruiter RAC, Fernández ME, Kok G, Parcel GS. Planning health promotion programmes an intervention mapping approach. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2016.
5.
go back to reference Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258. http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bmj.​h1258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference World Health Organisation. Evaluation practice handbook. Switzerland: WHO; 2013. World Health Organisation. Evaluation practice handbook. Switzerland: WHO; 2013.
9.
go back to reference Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Framework for program evaluation in public health. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48:RR-11. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Framework for program evaluation in public health. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48:RR-11.
12.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;2:77–101.CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;2:77–101.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.
14.
go back to reference Ritchie J, Spencer L, O'Connor W. Carrying out qualitative analysis. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice. 1st ed. London: SAGE; 2003. p. 219–63. Ritchie J, Spencer L, O'Connor W. Carrying out qualitative analysis. In: Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative research practice. 1st ed. London: SAGE; 2003. p. 219–63.
18.
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 guidance relevant to public health interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):643.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Denford S, Abraham C, Callaghan M, Aighton P, De Vocht F, Arris S. A review of Grey and academic literature of evaluation guidance relevant to public health interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):643.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Improving public health evaluation: a qualitative investigation of practitioners' needs
Authors
Sarah Denford
Rajalakshmi Lakshman
Margaret Callaghan
Charles Abraham
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5075-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Public Health 1/2018 Go to the issue