Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stead, M.
Right arrow Articles by Eadie, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stead, M.
Right arrow Articles by Eadie, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, 351-364, June 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press

The challenge of evaluating complex interventions: a framework for evaluating media advocacy

Martine Stead, Gerard Hastings and Douglas Eadie

Centre for Social Marketing, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0RQ, UK

New health promotion and public health approaches such as media advocacy pose particular evaluation challenges. Evaluation is important to provide feedback to media advocacy practitioners on how to enhance their efforts, and to funders and researchers seeking to assess media advocacy's effectiveness as a health promotion strategy. The media advocacy evaluation literature contains some examples of promising evaluation approaches but is still evolving. A comprehensive framework for the evaluation of media advocacy is presented. Building on existing approaches to evaluation in media advocacy and on current thinking regarding evaluation in health promotion, it proposes a series of indicators and research methods for evaluating media advocacy at the levels of formative, process and outcome evaluation. The framework can be used to encourage strategic reflection on the media advocacy process, to guide evaluation of specific interventions, and to demonstrate to funders the importance and complexity of evaluation in this promising field.


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
 Marketing TheoryHome page
M. Stead, L. McDermott, and G. Hastings
Towards evidence-based marketing: the case of childhood obesity
Marketing Theory, December 1, 2007; 7(4): 379 - 406.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
J. Niederdeppe, M. C Farrelly, and D. Wenter
Media advocacy, tobacco control policy change and teen smoking in Florida
Tob. Control, February 1, 2007; 16(1): 47 - 52.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
B. Wammes, B. Breedveld, S. Kremers, and J. Brug
The 'balance intervention' for promoting caloric compensatory behaviours in response to overeating: a formative evaluation
Health Educ. Res., August 1, 2006; 21(4): 527 - 537.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
B. E. Martinson and D. B. Hindman
Building a health promotion agenda in local newspapers
Health Educ. Res., February 1, 2005; 20(1): 51 - 60.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Marketing TheoryHome page
K. J. Kelly, R. W. Edwards, M. L. G. Comello, B. A. Plested, P. J. Thurman, and M. D. Slater
The Community Readiness Model: A Complementary Approach to Social Marketing
Marketing Theory, December 1, 2003; 3(4): 411 - 426.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Tobacco ControlHome page
R Durrant, M Wakefield, K McLeod, K Clegg-Smith, and S Chapman
Tobacco in the news: an analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco issues in Australia, 2001
Tob. Control, September 1, 2003; 12(90002): ii75 - 81.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


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.