Skip Navigation


Health Education Research Advance Access originally published online on May 20, 2004
Health Education Research 2004 19(6):720-729; doi:10.1093/her/cyg083
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/6/720    most recent
cyg083v1
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 (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reubsaet, A.
Right arrow Articles by van den Borne, H. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reubsaet, A.
Right arrow Articles by van den Borne, H. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research Vol.19 no.6, © Oxford University Press 2004; All rights reserved

Process evaluation of a school-based education program about organ donation and registration, and the intention for continuance

A. Reubsaet1,4, E. B. M. Reinaerts1, J. Brug1,2, J. P. van Hooff3 and H. W. van den Borne1

1 Maastricht University, Department of Health Education and Promotion, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, 2 Erasmus Medical Centre, Department of Public Health, Rotterdam and 3 Maastricht University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands

4 Correspondence to: A. Reubsaet; E-mail: a.reubsaet{at}gvo.unimaas.nl

This paper describes the process evaluation of an organ donation education program for high school students aged 15–18 years of which the effectiveness was established. The program consisted of three components: a video with group discussion, an interactive computer-tailored program and a registration training session. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 50 teachers who had recently worked with the program. The results show that all teachers reported to have implemented at least two of the three intervention components, while a majority of teachers reported to have implemented all components. Teachers' attitudes toward the program were generally positive. They reported that the opinions of students and colleagues in their own department were most influential in their decision to provide the education program. Furthermore, teachers were very confident about their ability to apply the different parts of the education program. The educational quality of the program was evaluated as moderately positive and almost all teachers had the intention to use the program again in the future. Because of the positive evaluations and intentions for future implementation by teachers, and justified by its previously established effectiveness, the education program should be considered for large-scale dissemination among high schools in The Netherlands.


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
 Health Educ ResHome page
T. P. Lintonen, A. I. Konu, and D. Seedhouse
Information technology in health promotion
Health Educ. Res., June 1, 2008; 23(3): 560 - 566.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
L. Gold, A. Shiell, P. Hawe, T. Riley, B. Rankin, and P. Smithers
The costs of a community-based intervention to promote maternal health
Health Educ. Res., October 1, 2007; 22(5): 648 - 657.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
M. T. W. Leurs, K. Bessems, H. P. Schaalma, and H. de Vries
Focus points for school health promotion improvements in Dutch primary schools
Health Educ. Res., February 1, 2007; 22(1): 58 - 69.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


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.