The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Developing a Process-Evaluation Plan for Assessing Health Promotion Program Implementation: A How-To Guide
Abstract
Process evaluation is used to monitor and document program implementation and can aid in understanding the relationship between specific program elements and program outcomes. The scope and implementation of process evaluation has grown in complexity as its importance and utility have become more widely recognized. Several practical frameworks and models are available to practitioners to guide the development of a comprehensive evaluation plan, including process evaluation for collaborative community initiatives. However, frameworks for developing a comprehensive process-evaluation plan for targeted programs are less common. Building from previous frameworks, the authors present a comprehensive and systematic approach for developing a process-evaluation plan to assess the implementation of a targeted health promotion intervention. Suggested elements for process-evaluation plans include fidelity, dose (delivered and received), reach, recruitment, and context. The purpose of this article is to describe and illustrate the steps involved in developing a processevaluation plan for any healthpromotion program.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This is lower than the 80%, which is often applied as a sufficient compliance rate.2,10,11”
From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is feasible for people with acquired brain injury: A process evaluation of the BrainACT treatment. (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“The current process evaluation was performed before the analysis of the effectiveness to avoid bias in the interpretation of results. 2”
From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is feasible for people with acquired brain injury: A process evaluation of the BrainACT treatment. (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
Citations
Cites
Dusenbury, L. (2003) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/18.2.237 · Cited by 1,671
Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research
DiClemente, R. J., Crosby, R. A., & Kegler, M. C. (2002) · Cited by 1,244
Process evaluation for public health interventions and research
Steckler, A., Linnan, L. A., & Israel, B. A. (2002) · Cited by 864
Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research
White, W. L. (2003) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2003.09.006 · Cited by 645
Intervention mapping : designing theory- and evidence-based health promotion programs
Kok, G. J., & Parcel, G. S. (2000) · Cited by 396
Process Evaluations of the 5-a-Day Projects
Baranowski, T., & Stables, G. (2000) · Health Education & Behavior · doi:10.1177/109019810002700202 · Cited by 321
INTERVENTION MAPPING: DESIGNING THEORY AND EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAMS
Bartholomew, L. K. (2001) · Cited by 312
Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (1999) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1023/a:1022194005511 · Cited by 269
How best to measure implementation of school health curricula: a comparison of three measures
Resnicow, K., Davis, M. T., Smith, M. J., Lazarus-Yaroch, A., Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J. C., Doyle, C., & Wang, D. T. (1998) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/13.2.239 · Cited by 130
Design of Process Evaluation within the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH)
McGraw, S. A., Stone, E. J., Osganian, S. K., Elder, J. P., Perry, C. L., Johnson, C., Parcel, G. S., Webber, L. S., & Luepker, R. V. (1994) · Health Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10901981940210s103 · Cited by 129
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Bandura, A., 1986, Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory
- Linney, J. A., 1991, Prevention plus III: Assessing alcohol and other drug prevention programs at the school and community level: A four-step guide to useful program assessment
- Steckler, A., 2002, Process evaluation for public health interventionsand research
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guidance for conducting feasibility and pilot studies for implementation trials
Pearson, N., Naylor, P.-J., Ashe, M. C., Fernandez, M., Yoong, S. L., & Wolfenden, L. (2020) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-020-00634-w · Cited by 475
Use of Social Media in Health Promotion
Neiger, B. L., Thackeray, R., Wagenen, S. A. V., Hanson, C. L., West, J. H., Barnes, M., & Fagen, M. C. (2012) · Health Promotion Practice · doi:10.1177/1524839911433467 · Cited by 417
Harris, L., Hamilton, S., Azevedo, L. B., Olajide, J., De Brún, C., Waller, G., Whittaker, V., Sharp, T., Lean, M., Hankey, C., et al. (2018) · JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003248 · Cited by 319
Walton, H., Spector, A. E., Tombor, I., & Michie, S. (2017) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12260 · Cited by 255
Behaviour Centred Design: towards an applied science of behaviour change
Aunger, R. V., & Curtis, V. A. (2016) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2016.1219673 · Cited by 234
Metadata
- Authors
- Saunders, R. P., Evans, M. H., & Joshi, P.
- Affiliations
- University of South Carolina (US)
- South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (US)
- Venue
- Health Promotion Practice
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 134-147
- ISSN
- 1524-8399 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6372
- OpenAlex
- W2156843619
- Cited by
- 1,031
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 63 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 37
- FWCI
- 12.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Promotion Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Public Health Policies and Education
- Keywords
- process evaluation, health promotion programs, program implementation, evaluation planning, fidelity, dosage, REACH regulation, recruitment (clinical trials), context, targeted interventions, evaluation framework
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Health Plan Implementation, Health Promotion, Humans, Planning Techniques, School Health Services, United States, Process Assessment, Health Care, Community Health Planning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
