A health promotion program is a step taken to develop appropriate theoretical and practical perspectives and solutions to a problem related to health (Eldredge et al., 2016). It is not enough to develop a program and explain its significance. The success of the health promotion program, when evaluated, and the recognition of the main goals and achievements is important. In this paper, the evaluation of a health education program for high-risk groups will be described and explained to identify the main benefits of the idea, to choose appropriate methods of evaluation, and to clarify the problems to be encountered in the evaluation process. Improvement and accountability are two main purposes of program evaluation (Fertman, 2015). The chosen evaluation for a health education and promotion program aims at measuring accountability, meaning an assessment of current performance, which ideally will lead to improvements in motivation, choices, and oversight.
Levels of Evaluation
It is necessary to consider three levels of evaluation (process, impact, and outcome) in a specific order. Process evaluation should include clarification of such details as whether the program reaches the target group and identifies effective ways to educate high-risk patients. This type of evaluation is crucial because it helps to monitor and document the understanding of and the effects of all program elements. A certain amount of attention should be paid to such aspects as participants’ satisfaction with the program and the possibility of achieving the program’s goals as planned. A better understanding of the program can be developed through the use of peer-reviewed and academic sources, recognizing personal needs and their appropriate explanation and reference, and identifying steps that must be taken in a certain order. Examples of these steps include the identification of possible stakeholders in addition to high-risk patients, material used, and expected outcomes.
The next stage of the evaluation process is impact evaluation. This focuses on the goals of the program and the effects that can be observed in environment or behavior. Health education may have multiple goals, and this program’s goal can be specified in terms of the subject of high-risk patients. Work observation is integral to the process. All stakeholders should be eager to participate in the program and demonstrate their interest. Clarification, in the event of changes in patients’ behavior, should be made. The measurement of awareness and attitudes is required (McKenzie & Smelter, 2001). The unique feature of this part of the evaluation is the recognition of the role of health professionals and the use of data that can influence the decision-making process (Boursier, Charbonneau, Cahill, & Dannenberg, 2015).
Finally, outcome evaluation should be used to clarify whether patients’ knowledge has been improved as a result of the offered program. In addition, it is necessary to discover if there are other outcomes that may be connected with health education, e.g., a decrease in deaths among high-risk groups, the number of visits to a hospital, or a change in the number of people who want to improve their knowledge about main health threats. There are always certain groups of high-risk patients, and analysis of statistics is the best method to observe the progress and change achieved. The evaluation process should be concluded with the question whether the offered idea helps to decrease the number of problematic areas.
Evaluation Methods
In this case, quantitative evaluation methods can be used to measure changes and possible effects by means of statistics and numerical data. This method aims at collecting and generalizing data related to a large population (Windsor, 2015). The definition of high-risk groups of patients may be formulated on different factors, and the task is to measure data and identify its stakeholders. Due to the fact that this program is a first step in promoting change and recognizing the appropriateness of the information offered, it is enough to gather general numerical data if the number of cases within high-risk groups of patients can be decreased. A comparison between certain groups of people has to be made.
Problems
The main problems that may arise in the chosen program and its evaluation process are connected with the choice of procedures and resources. This program involves a large group of people, and some changes may not last. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the goals, underline the expected outcomes, and clarify whether all tasks can be achieved. The evaluation may be problematic due to the impossibility of gathering enough data and applying it to the whole population of the country. Finally, not all potential participants will be able to agree to participate in the program and follow the instructions. In general, problems with the participants and identifying goals may be observed in the evaluation of the chosen program.
Conclusion
Evaluating a health promotion program is not an easy process because many steps and impacts must be recognized in a short period of time. Some problems and uncertainties may occur. Still, a clear identification of evaluation methods and a consideration of rules and standards can help to solve problems and achieve good results.
References
Boursier, E., Charbonneau, D., Cahill, C., & Dannenberg, A.L. (2015). An evaluation of health impact assessments in the United States, 2011-2014. Preventing Chronic Disease, 12(23).
Eldredge, L.K.B., Marham, C.M., Ruiter, R.A.C., Kok, G., Fernandez, M.E., & Parcel, G.S. (2016). Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Fertman, C.I. (2015). Workplace health promotion programs: Planning, implementation, and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
McKenzie, J.F., & Smelter, J. (2001). Planning, implementing, and evaluating health promotion programs: A primer (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Windsor, R.A. (2015). Evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention programs: Improving population health through evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.