Evaluating minimal intervention health promotion in a clinical context

This article has two objectives. The first objective is to summarize the evaluation of a minimal intervention cardiovascular health promotion program offered to a sample of forty-seven persons having percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty procedures. The second objective is to highlight several issues concerning the utility of small-scale program evaluation in a clinical context, as exemplified by this study. Results of a four month follow-up evaluation of the intervention showed significant findings in the areas of knowledge gain and lifestyle behavior change; these findings are illustrated through binomial effect size displays. The study failed to demonstrate statistically significant results on several measures of physiological and self-reported risk factors. Difficulties in interpreting results due to methodological limitations raise issues concerning the utility of conducting program evaluation efforts with limited resources. Dilemmas often confronted in small-scale evaluation projects and the importance of considering their relative, practical utility are discussed.