Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30741376›Full record

ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2019

The Funding, Administrative, and Policy Influences on the Evaluation of Primary Prevention Programs in Australia.

J Schwarzman, A Bauman, B J Gabbe, C Rissel, T Shilton, B J Smith

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

J SchwarzmanSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. Joanna.schwarzman@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1209-2523
A BaumanPrevention Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
B J GabbeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
C RisselPrevention Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
T ShiltonNational Heart Foundation Western Australia, 334 Rokeby Road, Subiaco, WA, 6008, Australia.
B J SmithSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluation of primary prevention and health promotion programs contributes necessary information to the evidence base for prevention programs. There is increasing demand for high-quality evaluation of program impact and effectiveness for use in public health decision making. Despite the demand for evidence and known benefits, evaluation of prevention programs can be challenging and organizations face barriers to conducting rigorous evaluation. Evaluation capacity building efforts are gaining attention in the prevention field; however, there is limited knowledge about how components of the health promotion and primary prevention system (e.g., funding, administrative arrangements, and the policy environment) may facilitate or hinder this work. We sought to identify the important influences on evaluation practice within the Australian primary prevention and health promotion system. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with experienced practitioners and managers (n = 40) from government and non-government organizations, and used thematic analysis to identify the main factors that impact on prevention program evaluation. Firstly, accountability and reporting requirements impacted on evaluation, especially if expectations were poorly aligned between the funding body and prevention organization. Secondly, the funding and political context was found to directly and indirectly affect the resources available and evaluation approach. Finally, it was found that participants made use of various strategies to modify the prevention system for more favorable conditions for evaluation. We highlight the opportunities to address barriers to evaluation in the prevention system, and argue that through targeted investment, there is potential for widespread gain through improved evaluation capacity.

Indexed as

Health PromotionPolicy MakingPrimary PreventionProgram EvaluationAdministrative PersonnelAustraliaCapacity BuildingDecision MakingGovernment ProgramsHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative ResearchEvaluation capacityEvidence-based public healthHealth promotionPrimary prevention

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.