Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rada, J.
Right arrow Articles by Howden-Chapman, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Rada, J.
Right arrow Articles by Howden-Chapman, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Promotion International, Vol. 14, No. 2, 177-187, June 1999
© Oxford University Press 1999

Evidence-based purchasing of health promotion: methodology for reviewing evidence

Jiri Rada1, Mihi Ratima2 and Philippa Howden-Chapman1

1 Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, University of Otago and 2 Te Pumanawa Hauora, School of Maori Studies, Massey University, New Zealand

Address for correspondence: Mihi Ratima, Wellington Asthma Research Group, Wellington School of Medicine, P.O. Box 7343, Wellington South, New Zealand

In recent years, greater emphasis has been placed on evidence-based practice by health care purchasers, managers and practitioners around the world. This is seen as a means of delivering greater benefits to patients and populations within existing resources. Evidence-based practice requires accessible information in a form that is relevant to the problems decision-makers face. The process of evidence-based practice needs to be informed by the best available research evidence of the effectiveness of health-promoting interventions combined with good judgement as to the applicability of that evidence and the feasibility of implementation in the local context. The nature of evidence which can be brought to bear on the decision-making process may vary in both quality and reliability. In the field of health promotion, the nature of problems requiring solutions is complex. Commonly there are multiple variables affecting multiple health outcomes. In addition, there is limited available evidence for the effectiveness of interventions and it is of variable quality. These factors pose problems for ensuring evidence-based health promotion. This article describes New Zealand research commissioned by one of four regional purchasers of health services. The purchaser required the development of a framework to prioritize interventions in 22 health promotion areas identified as priorities by the Minister of Health. Our framework was used to consider a broad range of different kinds of evidence, including scientific research, organizational capacity, socio-cultural factors and local community-based knowledge related to the determinants of health. Making explicit the nature of our framework and the evidence we considered, enabled our recommendations about the most appropriate interventions to be as valid and reliable as possible. Our judgement is that as for evidence-based medicine, evidence-based health promotion must employ both quantitative and qualitative evidence, and that the final judgement about purchasing of health promotion initiatives is essentially subjective and political.

Key words: evidence-based health promotion; health promotion purchasing; models; theory


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
K. L. Kumpfer, M. Pinyuchon, A. T. de Melo, and H. O. Whiteside
Cultural Adaptation Process for International Dissemination of the Strengthening Families Program
Eval Health Prof, June 1, 2008; 31(2): 226 - 239.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
R. P. Farris, J. C. Will, O. Khavjou, and E. A. Finkelstein
Beyond Effectiveness: Evaluating the Public Health Impact of the WISEWOMAN Program
Am J Public Health, April 1, 2007; 97(4): 641 - 647.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Global Health PromotionHome page
A. A. Aro, S. Van den Broucke, and S. Raty
Toward European consensus tools for reviewing the evidence and enhancing the quality of health promotion practice
Global Health Promotion, March 1, 2005; 12(1_suppl): 10 - 14.
[PDF]

Home page
 Eur J Public HealthHome page
O. Groene and S. J. Jorgensen
Health promotion in hospitals--a strategy to improve quality in health care
Eur J Public Health, February 1, 2005; 15(1): 6 - 8.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Promot PractHome page
N. Hanusaik, J. O'Loughlin, A. Ryan, A. C. Edwards, R. West, D. Harvey, and R. Cameron
The G8 Heart Health Projects Database: Testing the Compatibility of an Internet-Based Resource with Health Promotion Planning Processes
Health Promot Pract, October 1, 2003; 4(4): 413 - 421.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 HEALTH PROMOT INTHome page
J. Judd, C. J. Frankish, and G. Moulton
Setting standards in the evaluation of community-based health promotion programmes-- a unifying approach
Health Promot. Int., December 1, 2001; 16(4): 367 - 380.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.