No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
[Evaluation indicators of the Healthy Municipalities for Peace strategy in Colombia]
Abstract
The work that is presented is the first phase of a scale development study. The objectives are: selecting, developing and evaluating indicators for the evaluation of the healthy cities project in Colombia, in order to offer the bases for the construction of a measurement scale.
The project was executed from January 2001 to August 2002. A validation by construct and an assessment of indicators, according to their importance, data availability and formulation were carried out. A theoretical heuristic model for evaluating the Colombian Healthy Cities Project was developed; based on these model 128 indicators were defined. A preliminary instrument was then made and evaluated by experts in the strategy. A test was carried out in five cities in order to test data availability and formulation.
The final results are a heuristic model for the evaluation of the project and an evaluation of each indicator.
The final results are not finished. A greater effort is needed for developing good heuristic models and for building instruments for assessing the healthy cities project in Colombia.
Background: Obesogenic environments promote sedentary behavior and high dietary energy intake. The objective of the study was to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation and impact evaluation of projects oriented to promote physical activity and healthy diet at community level. We analyzed experiences of the projects implemented within the Healthy Municipalities and Communities Program (HMCP) in Argentina. Methods: A mixed methods approach included (1) in-depth semi-structured interviews, with 44 stakeholders; and (2) electronic survey completed by 206 individuals from 96 municipalities across the country. Results: The most important barriers included the lack of: adequate funding (43%); skilled personnel (42%); equipment and material resources (31%); technical support for data management and analysis (20%); training on project designs (12%); political support from local authorities (17%) and acceptance of the proposed intervention by the local community (9%). Facilitators included motivated local leaders, inter-sectorial participation and seizing local resources. Project evaluation was mostly based on process rather than outcome indicators. Conclusions: This study contributes to a better understanding of the difficulties in the implementation of community-based intervention projects. Findings may guide stakeholders on how to facilitate local initiatives. There is a need to improve project evaluation strategies by incorporating process, outcome and context specific indicators.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.