TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluating Structural Change Approaches to Health Promotion
T2 - An Exploratory Scoping Review of a Decade of U.S. Progress
AU - Asada, Yuka
AU - Lieberman, Lisa D.
AU - Neubauer, Leah C.
AU - Hanneke, Rosie
AU - Fagen, Michael C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, © 2017 Society for Public Health Education.
PY - 2018/4/1
Y1 - 2018/4/1
N2 - Structural change approaches—also known as policy and environmental changes—are becoming increasingly common in health promotion, yet our understanding of how to evaluate them is still limited. An exploratory scoping review of the literature was conducted to understand approaches and methods used to evaluate structural change interventions in health promotion and public health literature. Two analysts—along with health sciences librarian consultation—searched PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed U.S.-based, English language studies published between 2005 and 2016. Data were extracted on the use of evaluation frameworks, study designs, duration of evaluations, measurement levels, and measurement types. Forty-five articles were included for the review. Notably, the majority (73%) of studies did not report application of a specific evaluation framework. Studies used a wide range of designs, including process evaluations, quasi- or nonexperimental designs, and purely descriptive approaches. In addition, 15.6% of studies only measured outcomes at the individual level. Last, 60% of studies combined more than one measurement type (e.g., site observation + focus groups) to evaluate interventions. Future directions for evaluating structural change approaches to health promotion include more widespread use and reporting of evaluation frameworks, developing validated tools that measure structural change, and shifting the focus to health-directed approaches, including an expanded consideration for evaluation designs that address health inequities.
AB - Structural change approaches—also known as policy and environmental changes—are becoming increasingly common in health promotion, yet our understanding of how to evaluate them is still limited. An exploratory scoping review of the literature was conducted to understand approaches and methods used to evaluate structural change interventions in health promotion and public health literature. Two analysts—along with health sciences librarian consultation—searched PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed U.S.-based, English language studies published between 2005 and 2016. Data were extracted on the use of evaluation frameworks, study designs, duration of evaluations, measurement levels, and measurement types. Forty-five articles were included for the review. Notably, the majority (73%) of studies did not report application of a specific evaluation framework. Studies used a wide range of designs, including process evaluations, quasi- or nonexperimental designs, and purely descriptive approaches. In addition, 15.6% of studies only measured outcomes at the individual level. Last, 60% of studies combined more than one measurement type (e.g., site observation + focus groups) to evaluate interventions. Future directions for evaluating structural change approaches to health promotion include more widespread use and reporting of evaluation frameworks, developing validated tools that measure structural change, and shifting the focus to health-directed approaches, including an expanded consideration for evaluation designs that address health inequities.
KW - evaluation
KW - health policy
KW - health promotion
KW - measurement issues
KW - research design
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041918320&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1090198117721611
DO - 10.1177/1090198117721611
M3 - Article
C2 - 28810806
AN - SCOPUS:85041918320
SN - 1090-1981
VL - 45
SP - 153
EP - 166
JO - Health Education and Behavior
JF - Health Education and Behavior
IS - 2
ER -