0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Community-Based Participatory Evaluation : The Healthy Start Approach

      , , , , ,
      Health Promotion Practice
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Setting standards in the evaluation of community-based health promotion programmes--a unifying approach.

          Community-based health promotion often emphasizes elements of empowerment, participation, multidisciplinary collaboration, capacity building, equity and sustainable development. Such an emphasis may be viewed as being in opposition to equally powerful notions of evidence-based decision making and accountability, and with funders' and government decision-makers' preoccupation with measuring outcomes. These tensions may be fuelled when community practitioners and lay participants feel evaluations are imposed upon them in a manner that fails to appreciate the uniqueness of their community, its programme, and practitioners' skills and experience. This paper attempts to provide an approach that depicts evaluation as being mutually beneficial to both funders/government and practitioners. First, a values stance for health promotion, termed a 'salutogenic' orientation, is proposed as a foundation for the evaluation of community-based health promotion. Secondly, we discuss possible objects of interest, the first component of an evaluation. We then discuss the spirit of the times and its implications for community-based health promotion. Finally, we address the key question of setting standards. A typology of standards is presented. Arbitrary, experiential and utility standards are based on perceived needs and priorities of practitioners, lay participants or professional decision-makers. Historical, scientific and normative standards are driven by empirical, objective data. Propriety and feasibility standards are those wherein the primary concern is for consideration of resources, policies, legislation and administrative factors. The 'model' standards approach is presented as an exemplar of a combined approach that incorporates elements of each of the other standards. We argue that the 'optimal' standard for community-based health promotion depends on the setting and the circumstances. There is no 'magic bullet', 'one-size-fits-all' or 'best' standard. Further, we argue that standards should be set from an inclusive, salutogenic orientation. This approach offers a means of creating a situation in which policy-makers and funders are more supportive of evaluation designs that fit with community realities, and community stakeholders are more capable and consistent in rigorously evaluating community-based health promotion programmes and policies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy.

            This paper describes the process of developing a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy for a Kenyan youth-based NGO. The iterative nature of the study including the process of narrowing down indicators to measure and methods to monitor/evaluate these is well documented. A discussion on the extent to which the process achieved participation and was empowering for the participants reflects on existing power relationships and cultural context of Kenya and points to the need to create opportunities for youth where they engage with the broader community. Lessons that emerge out of the study focus on the importance of prioritizing monitoring and evaluation, the potential of youth to carry out effective monitoring and evaluation, and the need for researchers to engage respectfully with communities and participants.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: a Canadian case study.

              Community-academic partnership research is a fairly new genre of community-based participatory research. It has arisen in part, from recognition of the potential role of alliances in the development and translation of applied knowledge and the elimination of health disparities. This paper reports on the learning process of academic and community members who worked together in developing a logic model for a research program focusing on partnerships with vulnerable populations. The Partners in Community Health Research is a 6-year training program that seeks to combine research, training, and practice through the work of its "learning clusters". As these types of partnerships proliferate, the articulation and exploration of clear models will assist in their implementation. The authors, coming from both academia and community agencies, present a logic model meant to facilitate program management. Key considerations in the model's development are discussed in the context of an ongoing research partnership; namely, the complexity of the research partnership, power and accountability, alignment with health promotion policy, and the iterative nature of program design. Recommendations challenge academics, policy-makers, service providers, and community members to reflect on the elements needed to support and manage research partnerships and the tools necessary to ensure continued collaboration.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Promotion Practice
                Health Promotion Practice
                SAGE Publications
                1524-8399
                1552-6372
                December 27 2012
                March 29 2012
                : 14
                : 2
                : 213-219
                Article
                10.1177/1524839912443241
                9a66341f-7158-40ab-a54d-aedde4515552
                © 2012
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article