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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The case for primary prevention of obesity in the era of GLP-1 therapies.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Review
- Developing evaluation capacities in integrated care projects: Lessons from a scientific support mission implemented in Belgium.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
30741376What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.