Evaluation of Health Promotion Program at the Community Level in Mexico: Is the Program Efficient and Effective?

被引:0
|
作者
Alcalde-Rabanal, Jacqueline E. [1 ]
Flores-Loera, Yuliana [4 ,5 ]
Chivardi, Carlos [3 ]
Ruelas-Gonzalez, Ma. Guadalupe
Macias, Nayeli [2 ]
Gonzalez-Robledo, Maria Cecilia [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Nacl Salud Publ, Ctr Hlth Syst Res, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico
[2] Inst Nacl Salud Publ, Ctr Nutr & Hlth Res, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico
[3] Univ York, Ctr Hlth Econ, York, England
[4] Inst Segur Social & Salud Trabajadores Estado, Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico
[5] Inst Segur Social & Salud Trabajadores Estado, Libramiento A Kabah Reg 93,C Colonia Ctr, Cancun 77571, Quintana Roo, Mexico
来源
关键词
effectiveness; efficiency; evaluation; healthy communities; program evaluation; technical efficiency; TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY; PERFORMANCE; COUNTRIES; SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.1097/PHH.0000000000001741
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Context:Health promotion programs have been encouraged in the Americas since 1990. In Mexico, health program promotion at the community level was implemented by the Ministry of Health in 2001 to encourage community health status improvement. Despite the longtime of its implementation, evaluations of its efficiency and effectiveness are scarce. Objective:To evaluate the efficiency of the Healthy Environments and Communities Program (HECP) through 2 means: (1) efficiency of the implementation and (2) technical efficiency, as well as to evaluate its effectiveness. Setting:Target communities of the HECP of 32 Mexican states during 2013-2017. The HECP developed community interventions to improve community organization, health behaviors, and family and communitarian sanitation. Methodology:We conducted a cross-sectional study to evaluate the efficiency of HECP implementation and estimated the inclusion of target communities (focalization index), the retention of communities (continuity index), and the desertion of communities in the program (desertion index). To evaluate the adequate use of the program resources (technical efficiency), we used data-enveloped analysis and the Tobit regression model to identify external factors that can influence results. Finally, to evaluate the program's effectiveness, we estimated the index of the communities that improved their health indicators and were certified as healthy (community certification). Results:The median rate of focalization was 3.44 (1.31-85.13); the continuity of communities' rate was 0.50 (0.16-2.67). Regarding technical efficiency to reach healthy communities, only 2 states reached the optimal efficiency (score 1); where the efficiency was adjusted for external factors, 6 states reached a score of 1. The median of global effectiveness was 0.19 (0.01-0.78). We found differences in efficiency and effectiveness scores among states. Conclusion:We found lower efficiency of the implementation and technical efficiency, as well as poor effectiveness of the program to reach healthy communities. To achieve HECP purpose, it is necessary to revise its guidelines, improve its strategies to work in communities, and establish the right mechanisms to monitor its implementation. It is essential to focus on the resources used to enhance technical efficiency and effectiveness at the community level.
引用
收藏
页码:654 / 662
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of a health promotion program
    Casalli, JF
    Bonow, MLM
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 2000, 79 (05) : 1082 - 1082
  • [2] Evaluation of Patient Engagement and Health Promotion in a Community Health PrEP Program
    Coleman, Megan
    Elion, Richard
    Hernandez, Jose DelaO
    Duncan, Andrea
    Lacy, Leandra
    Sarkodie, Eleanor
    Wimmpelberg, Anna
    Hardy, David
    Schmandt, Justin
    AIDS RESEARCH AND HUMAN RETROVIRUSES, 2016, 32 : 289 - 289
  • [3] Community health education and promotion: A guide to program design and evaluation
    Haber, D
    FAMILY & COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2004, 27 (04) : 355 - 356
  • [4] Community health education and promotion - A guide to program design and evaluation
    Ritchie, D
    PUBLIC HEALTH, 2004, 118 (04) : 303 - 303
  • [5] Community health education and promotion - A guide to program design and evaluation
    Dooley, AR
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH BEHAVIOR, 2003, 27 (03) : 285 - 286
  • [6] A Qualitative Evaluation of A Community-Based Nutrition and Health Promotion Program
    Nieves, Christina, I
    Dannefer, Rachel
    Zamula, Arlen
    Fonseca, Anthony
    Myers, Christa
    Brown-Dudley, La'shawn
    Manyindo, Noel
    JOURNAL OF HUNGER & ENVIRONMENTAL NUTRITION, 2022, 17 (03) : 318 - 332
  • [7] Implementing a community intervention program for health promotion
    Brenner, B
    SOCIAL WORK IN HEALTH CARE, 2002, 35 (1-2) : 359 - 375
  • [8] Health promotion program: Tools for community action
    Marks, B.
    Sisirak, J.
    JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY RESEARCH, 2012, 56 (7-8) : 749 - 749
  • [9] Evaluation of a community breast screening promotion program
    Worden, JK
    Mickey, RM
    Vacek, PM
    Flynn, BS
    Solomon, LJ
    Secker-Walker, RH
    Skelly, JM
    Danigelis, NL
    Geller, BM
    Warner, SL
    Clark, RA
    Foster, RS
    Vezina, JL
    Hooper, G
    PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2002, 35 (04) : 349 - 361
  • [10] PARTICIPANT EVALUATION AND COST OF A COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAM FOR ELDERS
    ROGERS, J
    GROWER, R
    SUPINO, P
    PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS, 1992, 107 (04) : 417 - 426