Applying pragmatic approaches to complex program evaluation: a case study of implementation of the New South Wales Get Healthy at Work program.

Grunseit, A

Applying pragmatic approaches to complex program evaluation: a case study of implementation of the New South Wales Get Healthy at Work program.

Grunseit, A

Permalink

Publisher:: Australian Health Promotion Association
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2019, 30, (3), pp. 422-432
Issue Date:: 2019

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	s12889-019-6731-3.pdf	Published version	629.47 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Grunseit, A https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0783-4596
dc.date.accessioned	2022-09-29T00:59:23Z
dc.date.available	2019-03-06
dc.date.available	2022-09-29T00:59:23Z
dc.date.issued	2019
dc.identifier.citation	Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2019, 30, (3), pp. 422-432
dc.identifier.issn	1036-1073
dc.identifier.issn	2201-1617
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162160
dc.description.abstract	ISSUE ADDRESSED: Complex health promotion programs, which can have multilevels of implementation and multi-components with nonlinear causal pathways, present many evaluation challenges. Traditional evaluation methods often fail to account for the complexity inherent in assessing these programs. In real-world settings, evaluations of complex programs are often beset by additional constraints of limited budgets and short timeframes. Determining whether a complex program is successful and how a program worked requires evaluators of complex programs to adopt a level of pragmatism. METHODS: This paper describes a pragmatic evaluation approach used to evaluate the Get Healthy at Work workplace health promotion program, implemented in New South Wales, Australia. Using the program as a case study, we describe some key principles for applying a pragmatic evaluation approach and use these principles to develop an appropriate evaluation strategy. RESULTS: The evaluation includes multiple research methods to assess program outputs and implementation; and identify emergent program impacts, within constrained resources. The evaluation was guided by epistemological flexibility, methodological comprehensiveness and operational practicality. CONCLUSION: Health promotion programs, such as state-wide obesity prevention programs, require appropriate evaluation methods which address their inherent complexity amidst the real-world evaluation constraints, and focuses on the essential evaluation needs. SO WHAT: The main complex program evaluation principles are applicable to other multilevel health promotion programs, challenged by methodological and practical or political constraints.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Australian Health Promotion Association
dc.relation.ispartof	Health Promotion Journal of Australia
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1002/hpja.239
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	1117 Public Health and Health Services
dc.subject.classification	Public Health
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	Health Promotion
dc.subject.mesh	Health Status
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	New South Wales
dc.subject.mesh	Occupational Health Services
dc.subject.mesh	Program Evaluation
dc.subject.mesh	Systems Analysis
dc.subject.mesh	Workplace
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Program Evaluation
dc.subject.mesh	Health Status
dc.subject.mesh	Systems Analysis
dc.subject.mesh	Workplace
dc.subject.mesh	Health Promotion
dc.subject.mesh	Occupational Health Services
dc.subject.mesh	Australia
dc.subject.mesh	New South Wales
dc.title	Applying pragmatic approaches to complex program evaluation: a case study of implementation of the New South Wales Get Healthy at Work program.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	30
utslib.location.activity	Australia
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Public Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	false
dc.date.updated	2022-09-29T00:59:18Z
pubs.issue	3
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	30
utslib.citation.issue	3

Abstract:

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Complex health promotion programs, which can have multilevels of implementation and multi-components with nonlinear causal pathways, present many evaluation challenges. Traditional evaluation methods often fail to account for the complexity inherent in assessing these programs. In real-world settings, evaluations of complex programs are often beset by additional constraints of limited budgets and short timeframes. Determining whether a complex program is successful and how a program worked requires evaluators of complex programs to adopt a level of pragmatism. METHODS: This paper describes a pragmatic evaluation approach used to evaluate the Get Healthy at Work workplace health promotion program, implemented in New South Wales, Australia. Using the program as a case study, we describe some key principles for applying a pragmatic evaluation approach and use these principles to develop an appropriate evaluation strategy. RESULTS: The evaluation includes multiple research methods to assess program outputs and implementation; and identify emergent program impacts, within constrained resources. The evaluation was guided by epistemological flexibility, methodological comprehensiveness and operational practicality. CONCLUSION: Health promotion programs, such as state-wide obesity prevention programs, require appropriate evaluation methods which address their inherent complexity amidst the real-world evaluation constraints, and focuses on the essential evaluation needs. SO WHAT: The main complex program evaluation principles are applicable to other multilevel health promotion programs, challenged by methodological and practical or political constraints.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/162160