Process evaluation of an elementary school health learning intervention in Finland
Author:
Sormunen Marjorita,Saaranen Terhi,Tossavainen Kerttu,Turunen Hannele
Abstract
PurposeThis paper aims to present the process evaluation for a two‐year (2008‐2010) participatory action research project focusing on home‐school partnership in health learning, undertaken within the Schools for Health in Europe (SHE) in Eastern Finland.Design/methodology/approachTwo intervention schools and two control schools (grade 5 pupils, parents, and selected school personnel) participated in a study. Process evaluation data were collected from intervention schools after 10 months of participation, by interviewing two classroom teachers and three families. In addition, program documents and relevant statistics were collected from schools during the intervention.FindingsTeachers' opinions on the development process varied from more concrete expectations (School A teacher) to overall satisfaction to implementation (School B teacher). Parents believed that their children would benefit from the project later in life. The context and differences of the school environments were likely to affect the development process at the school level.Research limitations/implicationsThis paper demonstrates a process evaluation in two schools and, therefore, limits the generalizability of the findings.Practical implicationsThe process evaluation was an essential part of this intervention study and may provide a useful structure and an example for process evaluation for future school‐based health intervention studies.Originality/valueThis study highlights the importance of planning the process evaluation structure before the start of the intervention, brings out the relevance of systematically assessing the process while it is ongoing, and illustrates process evaluation in an action research project.
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Education
Reference49 articles.
1. Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. and Zuber‐Skerritt, O. (2002), “The concept of action research”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 9, pp. 125‐31. 2. Audrey, S., Holliday, J. and Campbell, R. (2008), “Commitment and compatibility: teachers' perspectives on the implementation of an effective school‐based, peer‐led smoking intervention”, Health Education Journal, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 74‐90. 3. Bere, E., Veierod, M.B., Bjelland, M. and Klepp, K.‐I. (2006), “Outcome and process evaluation of a Norwegian school‐randomized fruit and vegetable intervention: Fruits and Vegetables Make the Marks (FVMM)”, Health Education Research. Theory & Practice, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 258‐67. 4. Bliss, M.J. and Emshoff, J.G. (2002), Workbook for Designing a Process Evaluation, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Public Health, Atlanta, GA. 5. Bowes, D., Marquis, M., Young, W., Holowaty, P. and Isaac, W. (2009), “Process evaluation of a school‐based intervention to increase physical activity and reduce bullying”, Health Promotion Practice, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 394‐401.
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|