critically analyse a contemporary health program evaluation, considering a range of social, economic and cultural contexts.

Paper instructions:
Course: Health Promotion
Subject Name: Planning and evaluation 2
Level: Undergraduate year 2
Reference: Harvard (10 references)
Assignment Topic: critically analyse a contemporary health program evaluation, considering a range of social, economic and cultural contexts.
Format: Critical Appraisal
Length: 1000 WORDS

(3 PARTS: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND, THE EVALUATION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS)

This task requires you to REVIEW AND CRITIQUE THE FOLLOWING PUBLISHED EVALUATION: (PROVIDED)
DAVIS, B, McGrath, N, Knight, S, Davis, S, Norval, M, Freelander, G & Hudson, L 2004. Aminina Nud Mulumuluna (‘You gotta look after yourself’): Evaluation of the use of traditional art in health

promotion for aboriginal people in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, Australian Psychologist, 39(2), pp. 107-113.

This task is designed to encourage you to explore an evaluation that has been completed and has been published in an academic journal. In the CRITIQUE of THIS EVALUATION, you WILL IDENTIFY

AND BRIEFLY DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING:

1) PROVIDE AN INTRODUCTION AND SOME BACKGROUND TO THE PROGRAM THAT WAS EVALUATED
– What are the aims and/or objectives of the program?
Are they clear?
How could they have been made clearer? eg. Are they SMART?
Within this discussion, you need to make some judgement (with supporting EVIDENCE) as to whether these are appropriate.

– What is the rationale for conducting the program? You might also choose to mention something about the target group, the methods that were used or other relevant aspects. (NEED

EVIDENCES)

WHY DO WE NEED TO EVALUATE THE PROGRAM??
– Why is it important to know whether this program is effective or not?
In this section, you will talk about the evaluation of the program.?

– Consider this: why do we need to evaluate programs in general?

– Why does this program need to be evaluated?
Are there gaps in the literature?
Run in a different region or country?
Has it been modified?
Is it brand new?
Perhaps the program has been run before with, for example, a different population group, or is this the first time?
If it, or something similar, has been run previously, was it evaluated?

(TO GET HIGH SCORES):
1)    Clear and comprehensive introducion to the program is presented (including aims).
2)    Clearly stated RATIONALE or justification for the program is presented, the health issue is identified and the need for the program is supported by evidence.
3)    A clear understanding of the program of study is demonstrated.

2) THE EVALUATION
– What is the evaluation trying to do?
What are the aims of the evaluation – are they clear?
How could they have been made clearer?

– What type of evaluation is this study? eg. process or impact? OR is it both? – ensure that you PROVIDE ADEQUATE DEFINITIONS TO BACK UP your response here…

– Rigorous, quantitative measurement of an intervention requires accurate measurement of any change and a high degree of confidence that the change was due to the program and not other

factors (hint: (PROVIDED) Windsor et al (2004) article would be beneficial here).

– What is the study design for the evaluation of this program?
Once you have identified the design and methods used in the evaluation, you should make some comment on the strength of the?evaluation. (NEED EVIDENCES)
In doing so, you will provide answers to the following:

– Is there a more rigorous study design that could have been used?
Why wasn’t it used for this specific study?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a study design. (NEED EVIDENCES)
You should briefly discuss any possible sources of measurement error or bias in the study, as well as any possible threats to internal and external validity. (NEED EVIDENCES)

– Were the methods used for data collection in the evaluation appropriate? (NEED EVIDENCES)

(TO GET HIGH SCORES):
1)    AIM(S) of the EVALUATION are clearly presented.
2)    The TYPE of EVALUATION is clearly presented
3)    An understanding of the STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS of this EVALUATION is clearly demonstrated and evidenced.
4)    The EVALUATION METHODS are clearly described; the CRITIQUE is comprehensive and strongly supported by evidence.
5)    The FINDINGS of the EVALUATION are clearly described and are related, with support from THE LITERATURE, TO THE BROADER CONTEXT OF THE HEALTH ISSUE

3) CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
– What were the findings of the evaluation?
Did the evaluation show that the intervention was a success? (NEED EVIDENCES)

– Have the authors acknowledged the limitations of the evaluation?
Are threats to validity of concern in this evaluation? (NEED EVIDENCES)

– Can you make any recommendations to strengthen the evaluation? (NEED EVIDENCES)

(TO GET HIGH SCORES):
1)    Clear identification and succinct evidence-based discussion of all LIMITATIONS of the EVALUATION.
2)    Comprehensive discussion of how THE FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION might be used to improve the PROGRAM.
3)    Appropriate & evidence-based RECOMMENDATIONS for improvement to EVOLUTION design are included.