It is not enough to assess earlier content using approaches used in older grades. Special attention must be paid to developmental appropriateness and rapid development across domains. Early Childhood Assessment must be purpose-driven. Different tools are appropriate for different purposes.
Negative outcomes result when tools are used for purposes for which they were not designed. Assessment must be aligned to curriculum and instruction. Material assessed must represent the valued outcomes on which instruction is focused.
Assessment must be beneficial to students. Assessments of young children must serve to optimize learning. A wide range of domains needs to be assessed in early childhood.
This includes math and literacy, as well as non-academic domains. Multiple methods should be used to create a comprehensive picture of strengths and needs. Kindergarten readiness assessments can be informative, but should not be used to prevent students from receiving educational programming.
Another set of factors relates to methodology. Randomized controlled trials, the gold standard in clinical medicine, have proven difficult to undertake for the evaluation of community-based interventions. As discussed earlier, randomized controlled trials require adherence to a set protocol, yet a key characteristic of community-based prevention is to make sure that the intervention is tailored to the affected community, usually with significant input from community members themselves.
Such adjustment in the intervention makes it difficult to identify control communities for comparison purposes. In addition to these methodological difficulties, there might also be a lack of theoretical clarity about the effective mechanisms operating in such interventions and the full range of potential effects that might be influenced by these interventions Hawe et al.
Communities have long histories, and their composition in terms of both population characteristics and structural elements is not conducive to rapid change De Koninck and Pampalon, Changing the course of such systems is a long-term endeavor and requires a locally valid model of the possible pathways through which such transformations can be spearheaded.
Evaluating non-standardized, constantly changing, community-directed, slow-moving changes at all the levels in ecological models from programs to policies presents methodological, logistical, and economic feasibility challenges.
It is impossible to determine the relative contributions of all the many moving parts or the active ingredients in the complex interventions Mercer et al. Deconstructing complex interventions may not even be advisable, given that ecological models guiding the projects emphasize the need for multi-level interventions and the reciprocal dependency of many of the interventions and policies Sallis et al.
Furthermore, the prevailing linear research-to-practice paradigms, while useful for addressing specific clinical or epidemiologic questions, are often inadequate to tackle real-world health problems that are intrinsically imbedded in the widely varying complexities of behavioral, social, and cultural settings Livingood et al.
As with the earlier academically directed intervention studies, however, even when considering these complexities, evaluations of community-based programs, policies, and strategies cannot assure that an effective intervention in one setting will generalize to another community.
Emerging paradigms call for the integration of research and practice, similar to the integrations in applied physical sciences, engineering, and architecture Livingood et al.
These approaches represent a radical departure from best practice interventions and involve the customization of scientific principles and methods to each situation. They offer a greater degree of credibility about their generalizability insofar as they are carried out in real time by real practitioners and community partners Green, The following chapter examines system thinking in greater detail, describing how systems science can be used to explore the complexity of community-based prevention.
That chapter also discusses domains of value for community-based prevention interventions. Turn recording back on. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U.
Search term. Health Behavior Change The U. The Settings Approach As discussed above, clinical prevention alone is insufficient to modify behavioral risk factors at the level of populations.
Ecological The first group of strategies is based on an ecological model of public health interventions. Health Promotion Health promotion approaches are different from social marketing approaches in that they engage people and organizations in the transformation process and that this engagement in the process constitutes in itself a desired change. Policy Change The final approach involves changing the public policies that govern the lives of citizens in a given jurisdiction.
MODELS The following section contains brief descriptions of four models of program planning, implementation, and evaluation. The Community Development Model The community development model includes three important concepts: decentralization, participatory planning and implementation of programs, and multisectoral involvement. The Need for More Research and Novel Paradigms While a few community-based prevention interventions have passed the Community Guide standards for using appropriate methodology for evaluation, many community-based interventions are implemented without adequate evaluation.
Social Science and Medicine. Alley D. Changes in the association between body mass index and Medicare costs, Archives of Internal Medicine. Anderson L. The effectiveness of worksite nutrition and physical activity interventions for controlling employee overweight and obesity: A systematic review.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Antonovsky A. Social class, life expectancy and overall mortality. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Bartholomew L. Intervention mapping: Designing theory- and evidence-based health promotion programs. Becker M. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Thorofare, NJ: Slack, Inc; Begay M. The tobacco industry, state politics, and tobacco education in California.
American Journal of Public Health. Berkman L. Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. In: Berkman L. Social epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; Bernier N. Public health policy research: Making the case for a political science approach. Health Promotion International. Best A. Greater than the sum: Systems thinking in tobacco control. Bleich S. Health inequalities: Trends, progress, and policy. Annual Review of Public Health.
Bracht N. Health promotion at the community level: New advances. New York: Sage; Bradley E. Health and social services expenditures: Associations with health outcomes. BMJ Quality and Safety. Brennan L. Community perceptions and physical activity: An examination of the correspondence between protective social factors and behavior.
Breslow L. From disease prevention to health promotion. Breton E. Brinn M. Mass media interventions for preventing smoking in young people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Briss P. Promoting informed decisions about cancer screening in communities and healthcare systems. Brownson R. Dissemination and implimentation science. Cargo M. The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Carson K. Community interventions for preventing smoking in young people. Cheadle A. Conference report: Community-based health promotion—state of the art and recommendations for the future.
Cockerham W. Conceptualizing contemporary health lifestyles. Sociological Quarterly. Cohen S. Social integration and health: The case of the common cold. Journal of Social Structure. Dahlgren G.
Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. Stockholm: Institute for Future Studies; De Koninck M. Canadian Journal of Public Health. Do healthy cities work? A logic of method for assessing impact and outcome of healthy cities. Journal of Urban Health. Deasy L. Socio-economic status and participation in the poliomyelitis vaccine trial.
American Sociological Review. Diehr P. Social marketing, stages of change, and public health smoking interventions. Health Education and Behavior. Reaching our hard to reach—the unvaccinated. Donovan R. Principles and practice of social marketing: An international perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press; Dressendorfer R. A conceptual model of community capacity development for health promotion in the Alberta Heart Health Project.
Health Promotion Practice. Edmundo K. Promotion and Education. El Ansari W. Collaboration and partnerships: Developing the evidence base. Health and Social Care in the Community.
Elder R. The effectiveness of tax policy interventions for reducing excessive alcohol consumption and related harms. Eller M. Social network effect on self-rated health in type 2 diabetic patients—results from a longitudinal population-based study. International Journal of Public Health. Eriksen M. Thank you for not smoking: The public health response to tobacco-related mortality in the United States.
In: Ward J. Silent victories: The history and practice of public health in twentieth-century America. Evans R. Producing health, consuming health care. Social Science Medicine. Finkelstein E. Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: Payer- and service-specific estimates. Health Affairs. Fisher E. Community intervention trial for smoking cessation.
Fortmann S. American Journal of Epidemiology. French J. The nature, development and contribution of social marketing to public health practice since in England. Perspectives in Public Health.
Frohlich K. A theoretical proposal for the relationship between context and disease. Sociology of Health and Illness. Gauderman W. The effect of air pollution on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age.
New England Journal of Medicine. Gibson L. Challenging inequity through health systems: Final report of the health systems knowledge network. Gordon R. Public Health. Green L. Should health education abandon attitude change strategies? Perspectives from recent research. Health Education Monographs. Status identity and preventive health behavior. New policies for health education in primary health care. Geneva: World Health Organization; a. The theory of participation: A qualitative analysis of its expression in national and international health policies.
Advances in Health Education and Promotion. Caveats on coalitions: In praise of partnerships. Translation 2 research: The roadmap less traveled.
Journal of Health Education. Fighting back or fighting themselves? Community coalitions against substance abuse and their use of best practices. Health program planning: An educational and ecological approach.
New York: McGraw-Hill; Macro-intervention to support health behavior: Some theoretical perspectives and practical reflections. The need to combine health education and health promotion: The case of cardiovascular disease prevention.
Spec No Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Hackett C. McLetchie on mass campaigns. Tropical Doctor. Hallfors D. Fighting back against substance abuse: Are community coalitions winning? Handy S. Community design and physical activity: What do we know?
Harrison J. A meta-analysis of studies of the health belief model with adults. Health Education Research. Hassenteufel P. Paris: Armand Colin; Hawe P. HHS U. Department of Health and Human Services. No date. Planned approach to community health: Guide for the local coordinator. Hochbaum G. Why people seek diagnostic X-rays. Public Health Reports. Public participation in medical screening program.
Washington, DC: U. Hopkins D. Recommendations regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Howlett M. Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Inayatullah S. City futures in transformation: Emerging issues and case studies. IOM Institute of Medicine. Gulf War veterans: Measuring health.
Clearing the air: Asthma and indoor air exposures. Promoting health: Intervention strategies from social and behavioral research. Who will keep the public healthy? Israel B. Health education and community empowerment: Conceptualizing and measuring perceptions of individual, organizational, and community control. Janz N. The Health Belief Model: A decade later.
Kawachi I. Social ties and mental health. Neighborhoods and health. Kickbusch I. The contribution of the World Health Organization to a new public health and health promotion. Twenty-first century health promotion: The public health revolution meets the wellness revolution.
Kindig D. What is population health? Kreisel W. Intersectoral action for health: A cornerstone for health for all in the 21st century. World Health Statistics Quarterly. Kreuter M. Community health promotion ideas that work: A field-book for practitioners.
Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; Evaluating community-based collaborative mechanisms: Implications for practitioners. Larsen E. Health and Place. Lefebvre R. Social marketing and public health intervention.
If previous research or assessments related to the initiative are available, this information should be included in the SEA. Resources both human and financial, and the time required for conducting the SEA, should be built into the planning process for the policy, plan, or program proposal. SEAs should be started early in the development of a policy, plan, or program proposal.
The development of these initiatives often involves a steering group or team-they too should be involved in the process of conducting the SEA. SEAs benefit from the inclusion of outside perspectives. If stakeholder consultations are being conducted for the policy, plan, or program proposal, this feedback should be integrated into the SEA.
A good-quality SEA process informs planners, decision-makers, and affected public about the sustainability of strategic decisions; it also facilitates the search for the best alternative and ensures a democratic decision-making process. These principles can be broadly divided into two categories: those that pertain to the substantive or content aspects of the SEA, and those that pertain to the procedural aspects of the SEA.
These principles allow for a variety of SEA applications depending on the context of the policy, plan, or program proposal. The principal design criterion was to ensure that the process is sufficiently flexible that it can be adapted to the many different types of policy, plan, and program proposals that the Agency develops and implements.
Further, CIDA employees already consider many of these questions as part of their normal policy, plan, and program proposal development processes.
The SEA analysis requires that the respective questions probe deeper into possible environmental linkages. By addressing the questions below and by following the guidelines on how to present the SEA report Section 5 , the basic requirements for an SEA will be met. The following questions do not necessarily need to be considered in sequence. The preliminary scan has indicated that the implementation of the proposal will result in important environmental effects whether positive or negative.
In addition, the strategic environmental issues raised by the proposal, as they relate to changes in the physical terrestrial, aquatic, atmospheric and biological environments, have also been identified in the preliminary scan. The next step involves identification of the social, economic, and biophysical resources that should be improved, maintained, or enhanced to reduce or eliminate the potential adverse environmental consequences of the proposal. To accomplish this, the following should be identified: existing environmental resources, institutions, the level of public awareness of the issue, legislation, policies, plans, programs, and multilateral environmental agreements.
Much of the information for this part of the SEA may be derived from analyses already underway or completed for the proposed policy, plan, or program. The amount of detail provided will depend on the scope of the initiative and the available data. Goals are broader than objectives; they contain general statements such as "improving the nutritional status of newborn infants" or "reducing pollution associated with industrial development by integrating cleaner production principles.
For instance, a supporting objective for the cleaner production goal might be "provision of incentives for increased industrial efficiency.
Links should also be made to key corporate priorities e. Key Agency Results and relevant policies e. As well, the level of analysis should be consistent with the nature of the policy, plan, or program proposal in question. If, for example, an SEA analysis is being undertaken for a CDPF for China, then the analysis needs to be more general in scope as it is too difficult to identify all significant issues at this stage.
However, if an SEA analysis were to be done on a health program that involves many infrastructure projects, such as hospitals, then the potential environmental issues can be identified and explained in more detail. In general, the rigour of the SEA analysis depends on whether the policy, plan, or program proposal's goals and objectives are broad or specific, and whether direct linkages to environmental issues can be identified.
The purpose of this question is to examine the alternatives for delivering the goals and objectives of the policy, plan, or program. The delivery method, the participants involved, the scope, timing, and extent, will all result in different impacts on the environment.
If local groups, indigenous groups, and environmental NGOs participate in the design of an initiative, their information about existing environmental conditions could help ensure that the resulting programs have a low environmental impact.
There is no alternative to a CDPF: this must be done. However, within the CDPF one can discuss various options that respect the goals and objectives of the framework. For example, if one of the goals was to address the energy sector of a particular country, then one could discuss the options for meeting the energy sector goals.
If more energy is needed, would this come from high sulphur coal a least-desirable option , or from rather more environmentally sustainable options such as solar, natural gas, or hydro? Demand management could also be an option for consideration. Having identified feasible options, the next step is to describe the likely environmental effects associated with each option.
To answer this question, compare the existing situation with the changes that may result from implementing an option. For example, a water supply program may favour integrated watershed management as opposed to simply considering the access point. The SEA can identify where more environmental benefits can be achieved, so that less water is wasted and the health of the local population is improved. Assessments will largely be qualitative, due to the difficulty in obtaining quantitative information, but quantitative information should nevertheless be sought.
A source of valuable quantitative information may be found in the environmental economics and social literature. This step is essentially a risk analysis. To determine the significance of the environmental effects, the following criteria can be used:. The purpose of this question is to identify measures that will avoid or lessen the negative environmental effects associated with each of the preferred options.
There may also be ways to enhance the positive effects resulting from the initiative. Using the example in Section 4.
In another example, a natural resource conservation program could be paired with an education initiative in which local residents learn more about their ecosystem.
Once the options have been examined, the best option is selected. The most feasible option is one that:. Sometimes it may be necessary to reject all the options considered-often called choosing the "no go" option. Your Branch environment specialist, other sector specialists, and the Performance and Knowledge Management Branch may be able to provide advice on appropriate monitoring and evaluation methods.
These methods and indicators will be similar to, or the same as, those identified in the performance management framework created for the policy, plan, or program. Key to this aspect of the KAR, the monitoring activities must ensure that the environmental issues identified in the SEA are considered in the evaluation phase of the policy, plan, or program.
Rather, it is a planning tool to assist CIDA in developing policies, plans, and programs that result in more effective and environmentally sound development. Monitoring the respective environmental issues of the policy, plan, or program needs to be seen as part of the overall monitoring and reporting framework.
The last step in conducting an SEA is to present the findings in a short report pages which:. This report is to be reviewed by a Branch environment specialist, and must be attached to the policy, plan, or program proposal approval documents as they proceed through the Agency's approval processes. The SEA applicability form see Appendix C must be completed and attached to the documents for approval. The environmental resources form the basis for the identification of opportunities and constraints, which guide the formulation of PPP.
Management programs are developed to respond to potential negative environmental effects. These are implemented should the limits of acceptable change of the environmental resources be exceeded, or threaten to be exceeded.
The focus is on understanding the context-specific decision-making and PPP formulation procedure. The objectives of sustainability are then integrated into this process at key decision points, throughout the various levels and scale of PPP development.
Return to footnote 2 referrer.
0コメント