Long-term evaluation of community health promotion: using capacity building as an intermediate outcome measure

Public Health ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 162 ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Nickel ◽  
W. Süß ◽  
C. Lorentz ◽  
A. Trojan
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Capacity Building ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Community Health Promotion ◽  
Intermediate Outcome ◽  
Intermediate Outcome Measure ◽  
Term Evaluation

scholarly journals Long-Term Effects of Integrated Strategies of Community Health Promotion on Diabetes Mellitus Mortality: a Natural Policy Experiment Based on Aggregated Longitudinal Secondary Data

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik Röding ◽  
Ulla Walter ◽  
Maren Dreier
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Health Determinants ◽  
County Level ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Community Health Promotion ◽  
Integrated Strategies

AbstractIntegrated strategies of community health promotion (ISCHP) are based on intersectoral collaborations using the Health in All Policies approach to address determinants of health. While effects on health determinants have been shown, evidence on the effectiveness of ISCHP on health outcomes is scarce. The aim of this study is to assess the long-term effects of ISCHP on diabetes mellitus mortality (DMM) in German communities. A nonrandomized evaluation based on secondary county-level official data (1998–2016) was performed. In April 2019, 149 communities in Germany with ISCHP out of 401 were identified. Communities with < 5 measurements of DMM, starting before 1999 or after 2015, were excluded. Analyses included 65 communities with ISCHP (IG) and 124 without ISCHP (CG). ISCHP ran for a mean of 5.6 years. Fixed effects (FE) models were used to estimate effects of ISCHP and duration on DMM taking into account the time-varying average age. The FE estimator for DMM is b =  − 2.48 (95% CI − 3.45 to − 1.51) for IG vs. CG and b =  − 0.30 (95% CI − 0.46 to − 0.14) for ISCHP duration (0–16 years). In the first year of an ISCHP, a reduction of the annual DMM of 0.3 per 100,000 population (1%), and in the 16th year of 4.8 (14%) was achieved. This study provides preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of ISCHP in Germany. Limitations include inaccuracies to classify IG and CG and possible selection bias. Longitudinal county-level data may be an efficient data source to evaluate complex interventions, thereby contributing to further strengthen evidence-based integrated health promotion.

Dance for Your Health: Exploring Social Latin Dancing for Community Health Promotion

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph E. Iuliano ◽  
Karen Lutrick ◽  
Paula Maez ◽  
Erika Nacim ◽  
Kerstin Reinschmidt
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Community Health Promotion

scholarly journals Implementation of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation's Community Health Promotion Grant Program: A Process Evaluation

1998 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Wickizer ◽  
Edward Wagner ◽  
Allen Cheadle ◽  
David Pearson ◽  
William Beery ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Community Health Promotion ◽  
Grant Program

scholarly journals Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for Community Health Promotion

1996 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 282-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Stokols
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Lifestyle Modification ◽  
Ecological Theory ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Future Health ◽  
Community Health Promotion ◽  
Social Ecological ◽  
Health Promotion Programs ◽  
Social Ecological Theory

Health promotion programs often lack a clearly specified theoretical foundation or are based on narrowly conceived conceptual models. For example, lifestyle modification programs typically emphasize individually focused behavior change strategies, while neglecting the environmental underpinnings of health and illness. This article compares three distinct, yet complementary, theoretical perspectives on health promotion: behavioral change, environmental enhancement, and social ecological models. Key strengths and limitations of each perspective are examined, and core principles of social ecological theory are used to derive practical guidelines for designing and evaluating community health promotion programs. Directions for future health promotion research are discussed, including studies examining the role of intermediaries (e.g., corporate decision-makers, legislators) in promoting the well-being of others, and those evaluating the duration and scope of intervention outcomes.

Community Activation and Health Promotion: Identification of Key Organizations

1992 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael von Korff ◽  
Thomas Wickizer ◽  
Jennifer Maeser ◽  
Penny O'Leary ◽  
David Pearson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Native American ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Community Organizations ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Kaiser Family Foundation ◽  
Key Informants ◽  
Community Health Promotion

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to identify the kinds of community organizations community leaders consider important for community health promotion efforts. Design. Key informants were identified by reputational sampling of organizations relevant to community health promotion. Key informants were asked to list organizations they considered important for community health promotion. Differences in identified organizations were compared across informants from seven urban, five suburban, seven rural, and three Native American communities, with significance evaluated by chi-square tests. Setting. This survey was conducted in 22 Western U.S. communities comprising the intervention and control communities of the Community Health Promotion Grants Program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Subjects. Key informants (N = 184) from community organizations, identified using a reputational sampling technique beginning with the health department, were interviewed by telephone. Measures. Key informants listed organizations considered important for community health promotion in five areas: adolescent pregnancy, substance abuse, tobacco use, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Results. Informants frequently identified the health department (mentioned by 78% of informants overall), schools (72%), governmental agencies (55%), hospitals (47%), health clinics (42%), churches (33%), and newspapers (32%) as important. Organizations more prominent in urban and suburban areas than in rural and Native American areas included television stations, health-related private nonprofit organizations, substance abuse treatment centers, and colleges. Private physicians were frequently identified in rural areas (44% of informants). No more than one of the 25 informants in the Native American communities identified business organizations, private physicians, information/resource centers, senior citizen organizations, or community coalitions as important in their areas. Conclusions. Communities differ in the kinds of organizational resources available for community activation. These differences may need to be considered in planning community-based health promotion programs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document